A Historical Dare to Protestants

[With_Questions]

Jesus either is or isn’t the fullness of truth… If Jesus makes a Church his body which is the fullness of truth, than no other fragment of that truth becomes a “logical possibility” to still being the fullness of truth if it no longer holds all the truths of the one body.

Umm…you still are asking me to accept on your say so that the relationship to the various organizations in my phone book must be “fullness of truth” (one) → something less (the rest of them)

I still don’t understand why this must be the case.

Canonizing the books of the Bible is not an all the time in real life issue… it’s canonizing of the Bible for crying out loud… Totally irrelevant to your beliefs??? How could what they believed, which decided which writings went into the book that you wish to base your life on be irrelevant … We ARE talking about the issues of what the Bible says, and how they interpreted those words that were in the writings that were included in the canon… I’m not talking about whether they went to the market on Thursdays or Fridays… I’m talking about how they interpreted the words of Sacred Scripture.

SD

I think you are overreacting to a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Again…I believe that the people who were responsible for the canonizing of the Bible got it correctly.

I do not see why a prerequisite for this belief is that it impossible for these folks to have been wrong on any thing else.

Why can’t this belief stand on its own without any other added assumptions.

That is all I am saying.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Umm…you still are asking me to accept on your say so that the relationship to the various organizations in my phone book must be “fullness of truth” (one) → something less (the rest of them)

I still don’t understand why this must be the case.

.

No I’m not…I’m actually telling you NOT to accept what I say… Go study it for yourself… I would venture to say most of the people here defending the CC have, and a lot of times is the reason they’ve chosen the CC over other Christian religions, but please please don’t accept my explanation, go discover it for yourself.

I think you are overreacting to a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Again…I believe that the people who were responsible for the canonizing of the Bible got it correctly.

I do not see why a prerequisite for this belief is that it impossible for these folks to have been wrong on any thing else.

Why can’t this belief stand on its own without any other added assumptions.

That is all I am saying.

I’m affraid you misunderstand what I’m saying… I’m not talking about the “anything else”… I’m talking about the very Scripture you trust, not the other stuff… They allowed certain books in because they agreed with what they believed about those particular writings, many times these beliefs are different than what you believe them to mean… why in the world would you trust them with the Bible if you don’t agree with their teachings of what the Bible says? I would think you would trust them also in their Godly teachings.

SD

 

[With_Questions]

No I’m not…I’m actually telling you NOT to accept what I say… Go study it for yourself… I would venture to say most of the people here defending the CC have, and a lot of times is the reason they’ve chosen the CC over other Christian religions, but please please don’t accept my explanation, go discover it for yourself.

Actually I have studied it for myself.

A part of studying in my mind is testing what I am hearing and holding fast to what is good. Otherwise I might be gullible and become a Mormon.

I can test in a number of ways. One simple way is asking a whole lot of questions for the purpose of sanity checking.

Needless to say, the questions in my mind I am asking have not received good answers yet.

I’m affraid you misunderstand what I’m saying… I’m not talking about the “anything else”… I’m talking about the very Scripture you trust, not the other stuff… They allowed certain books in because they agreed with what they believed about those particular writings, many times these beliefs are different than what you believe them to mean… why in the world would you trust them with the Bible if you don’t agree with their teachings of what the Bible says? I would think you would trust them also in their Godly teachings.

OK.

But then you are still misunderstanding what I am saying.

I am totally not addressing the beliefs of those who adjucated the canon and whether I agree with them or not.

The only assertion I am making is that it is not a prerequisite in my mind for me to agree with them 100% on everything in order for me to agree with what they did with respect to the canon.

That is all.

 

[MrS]

Anyway, there seems to be a disconnect. ** [1]** You all are wanting to think of the church of Jesus Christ first and foremost as an organization. I think of it first and foremost as the people of God.

[2] I agree that Catholics claim that they have oral Tradition apart from the Bible.

Now how they can prove that this comes straight from the apostles is kind of beyond me. But that is a separate issue.

But again you are asking me to believe this because you said so. I just do not get how this logically follows from anything you said before.

Again at the time of the Bible there was one ecclesiastical organization. Now in my phone book there are several.

Why should I believe that the one organization at the time the canon was adjudicated is exclusively the Catholic church in my phone book and everything else is somewhat less.

You are again asking me to take this on your say so.

[3] Are you saying that you know Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, and John Wesley’s heart? Who are you to say you know their motives?

What if God told them to do what they did.

(Luther I am lukewarm on, Calvin a little cooler, but am a big fan of Wesley myself but anyway).

[1] Not quite… Catholics have a number of beliefs that are both’/and as opposed to either/or.
Faith and works, not faith or works
Virgin and mother, not one or the other
God and Man, not separate etc
and Church is Jesus Christ, is the Body of Chirst, is the Bride of Christ.

[2] Again not quite. Catholics have Tradition, oral Tradition, which was the only way of teaching preaching in the early Church. From those teaching, much was eventually written down. Some of it was written correctly, and some was written in error or with errors. But not all that Jesus taught was written down, as Scripture affirms.
After centuries, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these writtings were either accepted (canonized) or rejected… by the Catholic Church.
Again over time, others, like Luther, choose to accept some, reject others, and re-interpret still others. There is no Holy Spirit involved in those actions. The Holy Spirit does not divide.

[3] I do not know anyone’s heart. Only God does. But the fruits of their actions speak volumes… separation, dissention, rebellion, confusion, and endless splinter groups. I venture to say that none of these groups today resemble their beginnings.

The Catholic Church, however, retains Doctrines unchanged. And the bishops, good and bad, still can trace their authority to the Apostles.

Perhaps that is the key… authority. Jesus gave it to Peter alone, and then to the Apostles only as a group. Hmmmm

 

[With_Questions]

[1] Not quite… Catholics have a number of beliefs that are both’/and as opposed to either/or.
Faith and works, not faith or works
Virgin and mother, not one or the other
God and Man, not separate etc
and Church is Jesus Christ, is the Body of Chirst, is the Bride of Christ.

I know these are the Catholic beliefs.

However the issue in my mind is whether I should accept one of the denominations listed in my phone book (or the phone book of the larger county next door) as exclusively the church of Jesus Christ with every other denomination being of somewhat lesser status.

The question remains “Why should I”?

[2] Again not quite. Catholics have Tradition, oral Tradition, which was the only way of teaching preaching in the early Church. From those teaching, much was eventually written down. Some of it was written correctly, and some was written in error or with errors. But not all that Jesus taught was written down, as Scripture affirms.
After centuries, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these writtings were either accepted (canonized) or rejected… by the Catholic Church.

Actually this task was done by people who belonged to the one church back then.

Again by common sense laws of division, why should I assume that one and only one denomination listed in my phone book has exclusive rights to the one church that existed back then.

That is not the way divisions are normally viewed.
MrS;4677883:

Again over time, others, like Luther, choose to accept some, reject others, and re-interpret still others. There is no Holy Spirit involved in those actions. The Holy Spirit does not divide.

Of course this is just your opinion. Why should I accept your opinion on your say so.

[3]

I do not know anyone’s heart. Only God does. But the fruits of their actions speak volumes… separation, dissention, rebellion, confusion, and endless splinter groups. I venture to say that none of these groups today resemble their beginnings.

Again, this is your opinion.

I must say that you do seem to be cherry picking your fruit here.

If I choose to, I could very easily cherry pick bad fruit that I see coming from Catholicism. But again, that is cherry picking and not fair.

From where I sit I see plenty of very good fruit coming out of my church and other churches in my county (much less around the globe). In fact that is a sanity check question that I don’t have an answer for…Why is it that heretic churches are producing good fruit, if in fact they are heretic. That makes no sense.

The Catholic Church, however, retains Doctrines unchanged.

Boy, if I had a way of believing that the apostolic church of the apostles Peter, James and John believed in the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, your particular version of the real presence…

That is another disconnect. Why, if you are indeed the “one true church”, do I get a disconnect when I read the belief system of your denomination believes and then read the Bible.

And the bishops, good and bad, still can trace their authority to the Apostles.

Well so can the Orthodox and other groups. So this does not uniquely identify you.

But that gets to the other stupid question in my mind.

Say if I were to decide that one denomination in my phone book must be the “one true church”. The next question would be what is the metric I would use to identify this church.

You all say that it must be the metric of lineage.

My question would then be why would lineage be the governing metric here.

Perhaps that is the key… authority. Jesus gave it to Peter alone, and then to the Apostles only as a group. Hmmmm

The first issue here is whether Peter has authority greater than the remaining apostles. I am not yet convinced that is the case, although I suppose I could be persuaded here.

The second, more important issue is whether that authority has been transferred, unbroken, from Peter (or the 12 apostles as a whole…whatever you decide here) to one and only one denomination that exists today.

For a number of reasons, I don’t see where that has indeed actually happened.

 

[MrS]

The first issue here is whether Peter has authority greater than the remaining apostles. I am not yet convinced that is the case, although I suppose I could be persuaded here.

The second, more important issue is whether that authority has been transferred, unbroken, from Peter (or the 12 apostles as a whole…whatever you decide here) to one and only one denomination that exists today.

For a number of reasons, I don’t see where that has indeed actually happened.

The New Testament recounts the direct instruction of the Lord to Peter, and only Peter to '…feed MY sheep, tend MY flock, feed MY sheep…" Combined with the keys of authority, again given only to Peter
(and better understood in the light of Isaiah’s story of the chief steward who was in charge of the kingdom until the return of the King)
we can see that the authority rests in the office , which Peter was the first to hold.

ACTS recounts the importance of filling an office, namely that of Judas… not with just anyone, but only with a qualified man. There were only two who were eligible to fill the spot of the 12th Apostle. And much like the selection of a pope, the office holder was chosen by lot.

Laying on of hands is found often in the early Church as a means of conveying power/authority. (Paul to Timothy etc). Today the bishops are elevated under the authority of the Pope., the prime among equals, Bishop of Rome.

The office will be “alive” until the end of the age, No other group can offer evidence that they fill that office, established by the Lord to shepherd His flock.

Again it is the office… and the office holder was not always called the pope (from the word papa…= … father, for he is our spiritual father on earth.)

Now of course we could lead into infallibility etc, but… there are many threads that treat that topic again and again.

Question… do you see any correlation between the development of a new group of believers, and the “problem” of Catholic Church Authority??

Yeah, I do too.

.

 

[SD_Catholic]

With Questions…

You keep asking questions… this is good… we answer to the best of our knowledge from what we’ve studied… Then you have said a thousand times, “but that is your opinion” … Some of it yes, but a lot of it has come from facts that have been studied, and would become quite apparent if a person took the time to study in the right places.

Personally (my opinion), I will stand with the Apostles, their disciples, and other Fathers of the early Church when they explain what the Apostles and Jesus taught… 100 times before I would trust some 21st century self-proclaimed Biblical expert. You say you’ve studied, but studied what or how much? Yes, I agree it could be a grueling task, especially if you expect clear-cut answers to all your questions… The best any of us can hope for is to ask the questions, study the answers, study the history and facts, and come up with the best educated decision we can based on this information… Once you’ve exhausted all the information (could take a lifetime), you have to trust that you are making the right decision…

But if you’re going to ask us the questions please don’t toss aside every answer we give declaring it to be “just our opinions”, because usually they are more than just our opinions, and even if they are, they can still be checked for validity…

ps… you do know John Wesley died an Anglican priest (which has quite the same theological beliefs as the CC)… which is probably why you like him so much

SD

 

[Hisalone]

What makes you think you have seen all the evidence?

Have you read the writings of the early church fathers?

It would be almost impossible to conclude that they were anything other than Catholic.

Check out Clement of Rome(the fourth Pope) and St. Ignatius in particular:

newadvent.org/fathers/

Is it Clement or Ignatius that has spurious letters attributed to them?

 

[Hisalone]

God finds you, as He did when He came to earth in the flesh, as He did when He seeked His disciples and when He spoke to St Paul.

Our Church teaches us to listen to His voice, but our Church doesn’t teach us to challenge His authority.

Our Church is the place for God and for us to come and experience Him together as a community. We are not taught to be anti-socials.

A true faith community must place God at the foremost position and not the faith community itself.

 

[Tomster]

How can you ever reconcile that The Church is not what you have been taught iit is?

Is this what you are referring to?

Ecclesia: assembly, meeting, convocation. The kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority.

Institution. Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of “the kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of his kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy in the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to the eyes of all, but with a nonpolitical and religious end 9cf. Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26, 27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

Essence. From this we clearly understand that the Church is the continuation and the prolongation of the Incarnate Word, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the work of the Redemption, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the triple ecclesiastical power of teaching, ministry and jurisdiction.

As its Founder is a Person subsisting both in the human and in the divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element, visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism (theandric constitution of the Church). The Church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, “the social synthesis of the human and the divine.”

Properties. If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it has to be necessarily one, since Christ is one and the human race is one; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, ie. universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces (in tendency) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostles and their successors, who constitute the hierarchy.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic: These are the four properties of the Spouse of Christ: its individual characteristics which become also marks of identification; when considered in historical reality they appear to the eyes of all as distinctive signs of the true institution of Jesus Christ.

Power and operations. Being human-divine, visible-invisible, the Church operates in a way corresponding to its nature: through a teaching body which transmits the divine thought in the clothing of human words; through ministry which, by means of sensible rites, the sacraments, infuse supernatural life; through a government which makes known laws of the spirit in a form perceptible to the experience of the senses, the Church being the very prolongation of Christ in time and space.

Is this what you are referring to?

 

[Hisalone]

Then you have just shown that you do NOT understand Infallibility.

In fact, now I doubt you understand the Immaculate Conception.

Seriously. If so, protestantism is the place for you, for there you can self interpret and self absolve.

You are false on all accounts. I chose not to be Catholic becasue that is where God has lead me.

 

[Hisalone]

Are you leaning on your own understanding?

Scripture is plain

 

[Hisalone]

No, you are pointing out a position of your denomination, claiming that it is truth, and demanding that I believe it because you say so.

Here is the crux of what I am trying to say.

Somewhere along the line the church of the apostles divided.

Today in my county there are 10-15 ecclesiastical organizations in the yellow pages of my phone book under the title Christian.

Most locales have a few more, because my county is largely rural. I don’t know of any locales that have near the 32,000 that you claim exist, but that is another subject.

If there had been yellow books at the time of the apostles there obviously would have only been one Christian ecclesiastical organization in their phone book. Who knows what it would have been called.

So somehow the one ecclesiastical organization at the time of the apostles became 10-15 in my county’s phone book today.

Now you want me to believe
(1) Only one of these organizations is in entirety the one church of the time of the apostles. Everyone else is it.

I believe that it is much more natural to believe that all of these 10-15 organizations retain some characteristics of the original organization while losing other characteristics.

Now upon investigation I might conclude that some of these 10-15 organizations are closer to the source than the other, but I would not start with that assumption from the beginning.

And believing that some are closer to the source and some are more distant from the source is not the same as believing that one is the source and the rest are the imposters.

(2) You want me to believe that your organization in the yellow pages of my phone book is actually the source.

Even if I came to believe somehow that one of these organizations in the yellow pages of my phone book is the source, I don’t believe I could with 100% certainty identify which one is the source.

Now admittedly the yellow pages in my county does not have Orthodoxy in it. But I will stretch it for the moment because the next county over does.

See the above.

This is your say so of you and your denomination. Why should I believe either you or your denomination.

You dont even have to go there.
The Roman Church taught a false gospel prior to the counter reformation. Examine what they taugt compare it to scripture and ask yourself Is thsi the true Church of God?

 

[Hisalone]

For right now I am dealing with logical possibilities.

I personally believe the non-essentials are stuff that God has not provided all the details on and us humans thinking we know it all try to color in the blanks according to our best guesses. But that is me.

Good Scriptures.

I still don’t know why I should assume on the basis of these Scriptures, that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book (or the adjacent county) must necessarily be the one true church while everybody else is imposters.

Yes, but this does not mean that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book is in fact “the church” and the remaining organizations in my phone book are imposters.

How is this relevant?

You are again saying that Martin Luther is wrong, therefore we must be right. Now you can start a separate thread on whether Martin Luther was wrong or right on the issues you raise.

However, even if Martin Luther was wrong, how does this translate into "one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book must in fact be “the” church of Jesus Christ.

Well, Christianity is still around 2000 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, so I have no issues with this statement when worded like this.

Why is this impossible??

Ask yourself With Questions were the ones who burned people at the stake for owning and writting bibles in the venacular were they at one? Were the ones who taught a gospel of indugences and works were they in harmony with the gosples? Were the self indlgent popes cardinals and bishops who had concubines and sold church offices and demanded taxes from local leaders were they in harmony and at one? Then ask who split from whom.

 

[Hisalone]

I suppose if you are interpreting the phone book yourself, there will be lots of confusion.

If you ask the one who published it, you might get a clear answer.

As for Luther… he was a heretic. He was a baptized Catholic who chose to address legitimate problems with Church discipline and actions… by denying Church Doctrine and Truth… and then by teaching his new ideas as doctrine and truth.

:nope: not good then… not good now.

The Holy Spirit is often cited as the One upon whom a faith community relies to teach them truth.

Well, when multiple faith communities make that claim… we know for sure that at least all but one is wrong… and NOT led by the Holy Spirit. He will NOT lead anyone into error.

The phone book is plain and easy to read and needs no interpretation, much like the bible.
The heretics were the ones who taught that you could work your way to salvation and buy your way out of prugatory. Lther was a man who could not beleive the false doctrine that was presented to him

 

[Tomster]

Scripture is plain

Really?!

Since all authors write to communicate ideas, every text carries its own particular menaing. An exclusive property of the biblical texts is that they ofter have, in addition to their literal sense - which springs up directly from the words - a sense which is called typical. Such is the case when the words or the things expressed, or the persons described, have not only a literal, historical meaning, complete in itself, but are also pointed to signify other things, events, or persons. The type or figure is the thing or fact or person intended to signify another, called the antitype.

Can you independently distinguish between the senses of the whole Bible?

 

[Hisalone]

Originally Posted by Hisalone forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It is more important to find God.
Does your church teach you to hear Gods voice?
Do not look for a church Look for God.

Additionally, Jesus told the first Catholics… the Apostles… and Scripture affirms this… that

“…he who hears you hears Me… and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One Who send ME…”

I hear Jesus I follow him and the apostles which he has perserved over time Matthew Mark John Peter and Paul. I do reject the false claim of those that follow after false apostles and false doctrines.

 

[Tomster]

Is this what you are referring to?

Ecclesia: assembly, meeting, convocation. The kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority.

Institution. Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of “the kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of his kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy in the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to the eyes of all, but with a nonpolitical and religious end 9cf. Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26, 27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

Essence. From this we clearly understand that the Church is the continuation and the prolongation of the Incarnate Word, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the work of the Redemption, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the triple ecclesiastical power of teaching, ministry and jurisdiction.

As its Founder is a Person subsisting both in the human and in the divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element, visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism (theandric constitution of the Church). The Church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, “the social synthesis of the human and the divine.”

Properties. If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it has to be necessarily one, since Christ is one and the human race is one; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, ie. universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces (in tendency) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostles and their successors, who constitute the hierarchy.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic: These are the four properties of the Spouse of Christ: its individual characteristics which become also marks of identification; when considered in historical reality they appear to the eyes of all as distinctive signs of the true institution of Jesus Christ.

Power and operations. Being human-divine, visible-invisible, the Church operates in a way corresponding to its nature: through a teaching body which transmits the divine thought in the clothing of human words; through ministry which, by means of sensible rites, the sacraments, infuse supernatural life; through a government which makes known laws of the spirit in a form perceptible to the experience of the senses, the Church being the very prolongation of Christ in time and space.

Is this what you are referring to?

Is this what you are referring to?

 

[Hisalone]

Probably I have not. Have you?

Some. I have concluded they are quite unlike anything we see in 20th century Western civilization. If I were to compare them to anything, to me the closest match would be a persecuted church in the 10-40 window or something like that.

Actually I have read those. At least Clement I remember of reading…and I think Ignatious also…

Read the Acts of the Apostles and 1 Corinthians and ask yourself the the Roman Church look anything like this? And throw the diadche in also.

 

[Tomster]

Really?!

Since all authors write to communicate ideas, every text carries its own particular menaing. An exclusive property of the biblical texts is that they ofter have, in addition to their literal sense - which springs up directly from the words - a sense which is called typical. Such is the case when the words or the things expressed, or the persons described, have not only a literal, historical meaning, complete in itself, but are also pointed to signify other things, events, or persons. The type or figure is the thing or fact or person intended to signify another, called the antitype.

Can you independently distinguish between the senses of the whole Bible?

Well, can you?