A letter for protestants

[UriahTheHittite]

Thanks for clearing up the pope references. While I still disagree with the idea of a pope and all that entails, I want my disagreements based on what his role actually is, not what I think it is.

True, you probably won’t - unless you are an authority on the matter.

I suppose I’m not an “authority” as far as being a pastor or whathaveyou, but I do hold fast to this:

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.

• 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

If what I hear doesn’t line up with what Scripture says, I have the right to disagree with it. In this case, throughout the New Testament, I see the early church founded on the Gospel, not on Peter through the ordination of Christ as claimed by the opening poster’s letter. Not to open that argument again, but that is just to make a point. I do have to respect my pastor’s authority as my spiritual leader, that is true. But what I don’t have to do is accept what he says even if it doesn’t line up with what Scripture says. The same goes with the church that I follow.

Respectfully, Uriah, you are confused. Catholics don’t encourage or participate in cannibalism. We believe as Paul did - that the blessed wine is a participation in the blood sacrifice of Christ, and that eating the bread is a participation in the body of Christ.

I never claimed cannibalism in Catholicism. I was just referring to how Catholics interpret what Jesus said in John 6 as well as the initial letter’s claim about what this meant. I don’t see any Scriptural evidence that the bread and wine become anything special when participating in communion. It is, as Paul stated, “… proclaim(ing) the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26) and it is a very sacred and important event that should only be participated in by believers.

But my initial question about Matthew 5:29-30 stands. Do Catholics (or the original poster since he was the one who wrote the letter) see that as literal because Jesus didn’t specifically claim it wasn’t literal? Is it viewed the same way as John 6?

Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is the final authority on matters of faith? The NT wasn’t around when Paul wrote to Timothy.

I also never claimed this. The Old Testament and the New Testament are the final authority. God doesn’t change. My point was that to say that Scripture is only “useful” and not final authority is ridiculous. God’s word is complete. Referring back to 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, we can accept teaching and prophetic speaking only if it lines up with Scripture. Galatians 1:6-9 speaks against adding to the Gospel in a way that changes the initial message. And Revelations 22:18-19 is clear that it is the final revelation of God and no more is to be added.

I noticed you used labels in your post (i.e., “Catholic”). If you hate labels, then by all means don’t feel any pressure to use them. On the other hand, sometimes using labels makes it easier to have a coherent discussion.

I only use labels if people claim to hold to those labels. I use the Catholic label in this case because this is a Catholic forum and the opening post uses it. I mentioned labels because I didn’t want anybody trying to counter what I said by discrediting the Protestant movement or claiming I hold to certain Protestant teachings. I claim God’s word and that is what I use to back up my beliefs. That way, God’s word is the standard, not my church’s founding beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

If what I hear doesn’t line up with what Scripture says, I have the right to disagree with it.

Except, Uriah, there’s tens of thousands of different proclamations of “what Scripture says.”

You can take practically any verse in the Bible and find someone to claim that it says and yet another person will say it says .

So clearly this paradigm of “It has to line up with what Scripture says” doesn’t work.

 

[Lochias]

I also never claimed this. The Old Testament and the New Testament are the final authority. God doesn’t change. My point was that to say that Scripture is only “useful” and not final authority is ridiculous. God’s word is complete. Referring back to 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, we can accept teaching and prophetic speaking only if it lines up with Scripture. Galatians 1:6-9 speaks against adding to the Gospel in a way that changes the initial message. And Revelations 22:18-19 is clear that it is the final revelation of God and no more is to be added.

Well, 1. The Catholic Church was the one that decided, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which books would be included in what we know as the Bible today, so you are already following Catholic tradition. To say that the Bible is the final authority is ridiculous, because it is a reflection and teaching tool in line with the Catholic tradition that bound it together.

1. There are numerous references in the Bible in which Jesus entreats the early Christians to heed all that he taught, and the Bible then goes on to say that it does not hold all of Jesus’ teachings and traditions; so again, it is ridiculous to think the Bible is the be-all, end-all authority of the Christian faith. It is a wonderful tool, living and breathing and relevant in all ages and vastly important, but it can never stand alone. 35,000+ denominations, all thinking that their way is the right way, is proof of that.
2. You seem to think that the Catholic Church has added doctrines and teachings not found in the Bible (please correct me if I’m wrong on this count); myriad threads here at CAF on tradition and the role of the Church should correct this notion for you, if you are of a mind to be gently and truthfully corrected.

God Bless.

 

[UriahTheHittite]

You sure made a lot of assumptions about what I believe, who I follow, and how much Scripture I know with a dismissive wave of the hand.

As opposed to whom? Your pastor? Which of the other thousand protestant denominations who, without realizing it, are popes of their own?

I can say that our pastor always tells us not to take his word for it. He asks us to go look in the Bible and determine if what he said is truth or not. I cannot speak for every other non-Catholic church in Texas or the United States, though.

I still disagree with the idea of a pope, but I will admit that my knowledge of his role is limited to generalizations. However, our final authority should be God’s word, not a man.

Hmmmm…I think you missed the passage where Peter had a vision not to treat as unclean something from God. This where Peter’s eyes were opened to make the doctrinal decision in acts 15.

And can point out where Paul makes any doctrinal pronouncement?

Actually, I just read that passage in Acts 10 this morning. Funny you should mention it. According to that passage, God revealed to Peter that the Gospel could be spread to the Gentiles. I don’t know exactly where Galatians 2:11-21 falls into that timeline, but I do know that Paul rebuked him for not being “… straightforward about the truth of the gospel”. Paul’s doctrinal pronouncement came immediately after where he claimed that man is justified by faith in Christ alone and not by works in the law, as Peter seemed to be reinforcing in front of the Jews. I don’t see how that’s not a doctrinal pronouncement.

And when you get a chance to read about Catherine of Sienna, and other Church reformers who did not split the Church…like Teresa of avila, Francis of Assisi…or Francis de Sales…you will see that they denied any personal authority to define doctrine…instead you will see that they deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity. Now contrast this with your protestant grandfather…Luther, Calvin et al.

I probably won’t be reading about these people. Which is fine. You can read about them all you want. But here, you assume I’m either a Lutheran or a Calvinist or that I follow any of the other Protestant “grandfather(s)”. I’ve actually read very little about them. Again, I don’t really claim Protestantism. I understand that their movements led to me being able to go to the kind of church I go to, but it matters more to me what I believe about God and His word than what I believe about these men.

Actually…you most likely have never heard of v14…or is ignored by protestants…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

Which speaks of oral instruction/teaching…so taken together with the rest of the passage…it does not say Bible alone, does it?

I don’t think you’re looking at the passage as a whole. Verse 14 does not disprove verses 15-17. And verse 13 kind of sets all of this up.

v13: "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

This is a warning against deceivers (obviously) and that we should hold to what the men who are speaking truth teach us (v14). But their truth is only possible if it is backed up by Scripture. The rest of the chapter focuses on God’s word and the power it brings. Verse 14 only says hold to what they taught. Verses 15-17 show that God’s word is the most important.

v15: “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

I never claimed that you can’t learn from men’s teaching, but rather that God’s word is the final authority on the matter. Verses 15-17 back this up by claiming that God’s word gives us wisdom and allows us to teach, rebuke, correct, and be trained in righteousness. Verse 14 doesn’t claim that man’s teaching can do this.

If Protestants ignore verse 14, do Catholics ignore verses 15-17? I’m neither so I can’t say.

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

I’m not sure what the point of this is. I said I wasn’t claiming that Protestantism is God’s only way. Besides, this verse was speaking to Saul and saying that his rejection of the Lord led to him being rejected as king. Not that non-Catholic churches rejected God.

Well…who caused the start of different flavors of Christianity?

Do you believe in all of what Christians believed up to 1500? If not, then what makes you like a Christian prior to 1500? What is your connection to those first christians?

Once again, I’m not claiming Protestantism but you continued to preted I was. My connection to the first church is the Gospel. I don’t need a bunch of church history to prove that what I believe about God is right. God’s word provides that for me.

 

[Lochias]

.
I can say that our pastor always tells us not to take his word for it. He asks us to go look in the Bible and determine if what he said is truth or not. I cannot speak for every other non-Catholic church in Texas or the United States, though.

I still disagree with the idea of a pope, but I will admit that my knowledge of his role is limited to generalizations. However, our final authority should be God’s word, not a man.

If the ultimate decider of what is truth or not is you, what good is your pastor at all? Why would Jesus have set up a priesthood or Apostles to go teach in the first place? Why not just let the HS flood everything from the get-go? Your way of doing things presents a lot of uncomfortable questions, as well as a massive amount of responsibility to never get anything wrong, ever, for fear of leading another astray.

You couldn’t pay me to take a deal like that, sir.

I probably won’t be reading about these people.

If you are not willing to learn and understand what we as Catholics believe, then why are you here?

 

[Reuben_J]

If you are not willing to learn and understand what we as Catholics believe, then why are you here?

Precisely … .

UriahTheHittite:

From my understanding, Catholics believe that the pope has direct communion with God and believe he is infallible, correct? In other words, there is no authority above him that challenges him on what he says or does because they believe he acts and speaks directly from God right?

You said and asked these. They have been answered that they are not so.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is infallible nor does he believe that he is infallible.

He is only infallible only on a matter of faith and moral, information that are already known to Catholics as regards to Christian doctrines which are far and few in between. He has the College of the Cardinals and Bishops, who are his peers in coming up with such statement when there is one, after much corporate prayer and led by the Holy Spirit.

UriahTheHittite:

If Peter was the first pope, then why did he get rebuked by Paul (a relative newcomer at the time) for ignoring the Gentiles and fearing the Jews to the point of even bending the Gospel slightly (Galatians 2:11-21)?

You have started with the wrong premise, that’s why you asked this. If you listen to us that Peter is not infallible as a person, that he was a sinner like all of us and that he could make mistake in his personal capacity, you would see that what Paul did to him was the right thing to do.

You were saying that the Pope should not be rebuked and questioned. This is not true as it is not the case. He has been rebuked and questioned many times in the history of the Church, and that he also listened even to the small guys.

UriahTheHittite:

If they had revered Peter the same way the pope is revered today, Paul would have never said anything and the Gospel very would could have become Judaism with a little Christ sprinkled in. But it looks as though Paul did not see Peter as the “pope” or as this infallible man but rather as a man just like him who is capable of being deceived and who needed correction.

It is not the person of Peter that is to be revered but the office that he held. Do you know that the Pope confesses his sins to an ordinary priest? The Pope is just a Bishop, a priest, and like them he can be fraternally corrected.

UriahTheHittite:

Does the pope today receive correction and public rebuke when he’s wrong?

Indeed he does, and all the times.

UriahTheHittite:

Now I’m not trying to claim Protestantism is God’s only way necessarily. I hate labels and don’t consider myself a “Protestant”. I’m a Christian.

And so am I, my friend. And yet we differ in some of our belief.

How I wish that there is only one Christianity just like the early days before Christians began to form new churches and had different belief based on different doctrines.

Today there are so many different types of Christians and sometimes we do not speak on the same wavelength. It would help for the purpose of this Forum if we can tell where we are from, don’t you think?

God bless.

 

[pablope]

You sure made a lot of assumptions about what I believe, who I follow, and how much Scripture I know with a dismissive wave of the hand.

I apologize if you saw it that way…it made assumptions from what your post…it is hard to determine your faith tradition if you do not mention it.

I can say that our pastor always tells us not to take his word for it. He asks us to go look in the Bible and determine if what he said is truth or not.
I still disagree with the idea of a pope, but I will admit that my knowledge of his role is limited to generalizations. However, our final authority should be God’s word, not a man.

 

[UriahTheHittite]

I like a good discussion as much as anybody but I don’t think it’s wise for me to continue this. I have plenty left I want to say in regards to my post and the responses to my post but I will leave it alone. Ultimately, I can’t convince someone of what God’s word says if what the church says is more important to them than what Scripture says. If we’re trusting man more than God’s actual words, we’re in trouble.

But then again, my purpose for starting an account was not to learn about being a Catholic but rather to contest posts like this. Not the best use of my time.

I’ll be deleting my account so I can pay more attention to my wife.

 

[stewstew03]

I like a good discussion as much as anybody but I don’t think it’s wise for me to continue this. I have plenty left I want to say in regards to my post and the responses to my post but I will leave it alone. Ultimately, I can’t convince someone of what God’s word says if what the church says is more important to them than what Scripture says. If we’re trusting man more than God’s actual words, we’re in trouble.

But then again, my purpose for starting an account was not to learn about being a Catholic but rather to contest posts like this. Not the best use of my time.

I’ll be deleting my account so I can pay more attention to my wife.

And the purpose of CAF is to educate those who are ignorant of our faith. Your responses demonstrate that you are not here to listen or to learn, so deleting your account is probably in everyone’s best interest. However, you should peruse the tracts located here, and come back to discuss when you’re ready.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Indeed I am. I used to have on my signature “I’m a she, not a he!” , because, for some reason, the name PRmerger seems to conjure up the image that I’m male. Don’t know why.

And the mystery continues. Initially I thought the same also, though, some time ago. So much for assuming. Perhaps the empty “R” might serve some indication?

 

[PRmerger]

I like a good discussion as much as anybody but I don’t think it’s wise for me to continue this. I have plenty left I want to say in regards to my post and the responses to my post but I will leave it alone. Ultimately, I can’t convince someone of what God’s word says if what the church says is more important to them than what Scripture says.

And this is why you will never be able to dialogue with Catholics–what you are arguing against is only a figment of your own imagination. No Catholic here says that the Church is more important to them than what Scripture says.

That’s like a Muslim saying, “I can’t convince a Christian about what God says if the Christian keeps proclaiming that we need to worship the Bible. God alone is to be worshipped.”

No Christian ought to be proclaiming that the Bible needs to be worshipped. And if a Muslim is arguing against that, well, then he’s missed the point entirely.

If we’re trusting man more than God’s actual words, we’re in trouble.

And just to put a thought into your head, Uriah, think about this: you trust in man each and every time you quote from the Bible, because it was man (in fact, Catholic man) that discerned for you that Hebrews, for example, is inspired, and that the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

 

[PRmerger]

And the mystery continues. Initially I thought the same also, though, some time ago. So much for assuming. Perhaps the empty “R” might serve some indication?

Yep. “P” is for DH. “R” is for me. The rest of the initials are for the DDs and last name.

 

[horselvr]

Again I would like to thank everyone on this thread because it is threads just like this that I find most rewarding about CAF.

UriahTheHittite: Please don’t leave the forum because your questions and rebuttles and the answers you have received have great value to someone like me. I learn so much from folks like you that keep pressing for answers and the educated replies given.

Without you and this forum, the questions asked and the answers given, I would have not realized the truth that is Catholicism. Thank you so much.

 

[Lochias]

Again I would like to thank everyone on this thread because it is threads just like this that I find most rewarding about CAF.

UriahTheHittite: Please don’t leave the forum because your questions and rebuttles and the answers you have received have great value to someone like me. I learn so much from folks like you that keep pressing for answers and the educated replies given.

Without you and this forum, the questions asked and the answers given, I would have not realized the truth that is Catholicism. Thank you so much.

Excellently put.

Uriah, I hope you continue to come to these forums, asking your questions in a true spirit of wishing to understand and be understood by your Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[stewstew03]

Yep. “P” is for DH.

Designated Hitter?

 

[stewstew03]

…asking your questions in a true spirit of wishing to understand and be understood…

Unfortunately, Uriah is not at this point yet, which is why I recommended he/she read the tracts on the site.

 

[PRmerger]

Designated Hitter?

Heh. Sports references: :yawn:

DH = dear husband
DD = dear daughter

 

[stewstew03]

Heh. Sports references: :yawn:

DH = dear husband
DD = dear daughter

Oh, okay. As long as you’re not using “DL” (Dear Leader) to refer to Obama (or Romney)… that term is specifically reserved for the late great Kim Jong-il!

 

[rfournier103]

But once I got as far as where you said other churches began after 1600 I had to pause. Some believe their faith and church go back to earlier than that. I’ve read on the United Church of Christ website, “Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not.” I know some Episcopalians consider themselves Catholic just not Roman. So I hesitate grouping them with Protestants. But it seems some Catholics consider them Protestant. So on the Episcopal Church’s website I’ve read, “The beginnings of the Church of England, from which the Episcopal Church derives, date to at least the second century, when merchants and other travelers first brought Christianity to England.” I imagine others have similar views as to their church.

A good post here. As something of a history buff, I take a particular fascination with Christian history. When it comes to Protestantism, I have to say that I have a strong respect for their love of Christ. Many are VERY stong in their faith, and I commend them for that.

As for the UCC and their saying that their faith is 2000 years old… I can only look at that as an attempt to legitimize a church that has very little structure and history. Shockingly socially liberal, it just doesn’t resemble a Church to me; it’s more like a town meeting with singing and one reading from scripture. I know this because I have attended many of their services on Sundays (having attended the Saturday vigil in my own Catholic parish).

They should be commended for teaching that we should love one another, support those in need, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. I love that, but ALL Christians should do that, and all who profess love for God and Jesus know that that is what They expect from us.

Maybe I am taking too harsh a stance on this, but what I know from history is that Protestantism was really founded by a disgruntled cleric and a King that wanted a divorce. To me, I don’t see that as grounds for founding another church apart from the Church that Christ Himself founded. Petulant sheep who think they’d be better off in another flock, but now look on the old flock with disdain.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, okay. As long as you’re not using “DL” (Dear Leader) to refer to Obama (or Romney)… that term is specifically reserved for the late great Kim Jong-il!