Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

Hi Pablope,

This the gist of my question…why do you think their interpretation is superior to that of the CC’s? Did you come to that volition? I do not think so…somebody has told you…correct? And you agreed?

Because of their expositions of scripture, giving it its right place. I suppose that’s what we’re discussing here

I have read some…but I do not give weight to much of what they say…since they were borne out of disobedience of Divine Authority.
As I said, why is it that Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assissi, can reform the Church without the need to split it…and why did the Reformation necessitated a split?

Because sadly, the church did not listen to the truth they preached. The CC left Luther, not the other way around, from my perspective.

Again, Linc…my question…where did you get that authority to say they departed? They could say the same of you too, isn’t it? You appeal to the creed, they could too, you appeal to Scriputre, they could too…it is never ending…so where does it end? Who is going to say one is right, the other is wrong…and then that ends it once and for all?

Well if the creed says “justification by faith alone” and one group denies this, then obviously they have departed from orthodox Protestant thought…

Well, for one thing…what is protestant orthodoxy to begin with? Who will define protestant orthodoxy? Will you get everyone to agree?

Well for me it’s enshrined in the old creeds, hence why I appeal regularly to Calvin, keeping focus to the fathers of the reformed movement. But no, Protestants don’t agree on everything, I’m not defending all of them that have sprung up…

Do both views run contrary to Catholic teaching or dogma? Do they cause error on faith and morals?

I don’t know, but one side must be right on it… I’m not saying this is a major divisive issue, simply that the appeal to absolute uniformity of thought isn’t actually so… There is liberty and legitimate disagreement in the CC. Why not amongst Protestants?

Their personal opinion or interpretation that there is no basis from Tradition, from Scripture…and humbly accept the position or teaching of the CC. You should read their testimonies for what it’s worth…after giving their assent…they recount calmness, grace in their decision.

Let me ask you a question…when the decision to not require circumcision in the first jerusalem council…what scripture did they use to base the decision?

And do you honestly opine that the CC will declare a dogma without a basis from Sacred Tradition? Have you read the proclamation on the Assumption for starters?

I read lots of conversion stories from both sides, both RC’s to Protestsntism and vies versa, but conversion stories are so subjective I don’t always find them compelling, they are for those who experienced them, but not always for readers.

As for the concil of Jerusalem, I don’t have any qualms at all with saying the Apostles had the authrotiy to proclaim doctrine… “he who hears you, hears me…”. Of course the argument is given in vast detail by Paul in Romans, Galatians etc. it’s no issue to a Protestant at all… We simply don’t think that those after the apostles had the same form of authority as them. They were unique.

I do think it will yes. Papal infallibility, first or second century evidence? One could summon countless catholic witness against said dogma prior to its proclamation…

Well…who is to make that proclamation? Do you have that infallible authority to make that statement, that when you state it…everyone falls in line?

D you think everything necessary for salvation is not clearly stated in scripture?

Of course not. The pope, starting with Damasus in AD382, issued his proclamation, followed by the pope affirming Carthage. Let me restate…even if there was not bible or official or infallibly defined canon…the catholic would not be let astray…there is always the Bishops…and their apostolic lineage…to guide them.

I am sure someone has quoted you this ignatius quote…chap 8, letter to smyrna…See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.

So before Damasus no one had any knowledge of the canon? Again, the position I hold is one of early recognition, with a gradual movement that collected all the books of scripture into a single volume. No infallible authrotiy was needed for this. Indeed I am familiar with said quote… Of note is his lack of any episcopal salutation in his letter to Rome (no single bishop in Rome at this point). But indeed, it is sound, obey your presbyters, quite biblical.

Can you give a range…let us say below 20K, 10K, something in between? between 30k and 20K, between 15K and 5K?

The catholic source I posted gives the number 149.

I do not think the Church refused to listen…patience had run out and trust in the Holy Spirit was replaced by pride…something that Catherine of Sienna trusted in wholly in the Holy Spirit.

I’d say I refused to listen. I would also say the Reformers did their utmost to be devout and listen to the voice of the Spirit.

Well, if it is invisible…how can God or the HS be guiding the Church? How will someone seeking be able to find an invisible church?

The Invisible church is the elect of God, those who are called, justified and will be glorified (Romans 8:30), who cannot be snatched out of the Lords hands or fail to come to him (John 6:39). The invisible church are part of the visible church, which also contains within its confines those who are not true believers. (Acts 20:29-30).

Kind regards, Pablope

Lincs.

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

Because of their expositions of scripture, giving it its right place. I suppose that’s what we’re discussing here

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Pay attention to the speedometer guys.
1000

 

[pablope]

Kind regards, Pablope

Lincs.

Hey Linc…have you thought of your next thread? We are nearing the 1000 post mark…

Anyway, I want to apologize if I did not come across as being charitable to you…I usually ask blunt and direct questions.

I want to commend you for your discussions and being charitable and reasonableness…God bless…and God speed…

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

I’d say I refused to listen. I would also say the Reformers did their utmost to be devout and listen to the voice of the Spirit.

I’d say I refused to listen. I would also say the Reformers did their utmost to be devout and listen to the voice of the Spirit.

Kind regards, Pablope

Lincs.

Hi, Linc…just came across this part of the story King Saul and Samuel…in 1Sam 15…about King Agag and the Amalkites…

I thought I would post it here…King Saul disobeyed…and this is Samuel’s reply…

1Sam 15…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 do not think the Holy Spirit would tell Luther et al, to disobey…correct?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The CC left Luther, not the other way around, from my perspective…

No Luther had no intent on going anywhere, the he left through his own free-will, documented history.

The creed says “justification by faith alone” and one group denies this, then obviously they have departed from orthodox Protestant thought… .

The Creed is known through the Ecumenical Councils, no-where does it state “justification through faith alone” false by your own admission.

Well for me it’s enshrined in the old creeds, hence why I appeal regularly to Calvin, keeping focus to the fathers of the reformed movement. Protestants don’t agree on everything

Oh like the Nicene Creed which does not mention Justification by Faith Alone.

There is liberty and legitimate disagreement in the CC…

In this regard, how so?

Where “DO” Protestants agree? Certainly not in this proposed reformed theology.

I read lots of conversion stories from both sides, both RC’s to Protestsntism, but conversion stories are so subjective I don’t always find them compelling, they are for those who experienced them

Main-Line Protestant is all but disappearing, and we have the “evolved” reformed theology which would like to hang its hat on the reformation, but yet theres a severe break from this.

We simply don’t think that those after the apostles had the same form of authority as them

Where does the Bible state this “specifically”?

Papal infallibility, first or second century evidence? One could summon countless catholic witness against said dogma prior to its proclamation…

Show me the “countless” Catholic witness against?

Papal Infallibility already existed 1-2nd century, You never proved it didn’t exist, nor is there any reason to believe it didn’t. Example; “Fr Hardon Archives”

you think everything necessary for salvation is not clearly stated in scripture?.

No issue with Scripture, its “Sola Scriptura” stray such as with “Justification by Faith Alone” as we see through this thread. There is but one teaching authority and its the same one which has always existed!

“You are Peter and Upon this Rock [you] I will build my Church” To [you Peter] I will give the Keys of thre Kingdom! All singular in every language and translation. There is no You Guys, You-All, Fellows, My Apostles…No its “You-Peter” Ist person singular.

And then Christ did exactly this, and this continues to exist as God willed 2000 years later. Looks infallible to me, sounds infallable to me, perhaps its infallible.

Of note is his lack of any episcopal salutation in his letter to Rome (no single bishop in Rome at this point). But indeed, it is sound, obey your presbyters, quite biblical…

You actually believe in this selective understanding?

Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, best known and most ancient of all.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.”

Among the apostolic Churches, only the Church of Rome was so distinguished. It is not impossible that the reason for this was a belief in the primacy of the papal magisterium.
“Fr Hardon Archives”

And of course Irenaeus confirms the Apostolic Succession of the Bishops of Rome, comfirmed by “two” other early church fathers. The first 3-whom are directly chosen by St Peter.

I would also say the Reformers did their utmost to be devout and listen to the voice of the Spirit…

What spirit is the question, and how do we know they listen to the HS? How does one prove this? They certainly can’t claim discernment.

The Invisible church is the elect of God, those who are called, justified and will be glorified (Romans 8:30), who cannot be snatched out of the Lords hands or fail to come to him (John 6:39). The invisible church are part of the visible church, which also contains within its confines those who are not true believers. (Acts 20:29-30)

Familiar with the verse and chapter, Fail to see how this is the “Invisable Chruch” but in Sola Scriptura understanding. Ch 20 is the “Address to the Miletus Presbyters”

“You know when I am gone savage wolve will come among you who will not spare the flock, from your own number men will present themselves distorting the truth”

Seen the movie with “Justification throught Faith Alone” The “presdestined and damned from predestination”. Early heresy of the church.

Who is “in” this invisable church? Who has been Glorified by God here we can witness? I see None in the Reformed Church…who?

I do see through history the Church Triumphant who celebrate the eternal redemptive event. The Saints who are documented, proved through discernment thus verified in the “Catholic Church” where is this in the “Reformed Theology” which pays no due respect to Gods Elect in 2000 years. Severe breach in the Kingdom of God I would say.

Peace, Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Where “DO” Protestants agree? Certainly not in this proposed reformed theology.

'zactly.

Here’s a list of all the areas in which Protestants cannot agree, even if they read the very same Bible:

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism-- Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• Women pastors, no women pastors

Here’s a list that I’ve come up with on what Catholicism allows differing opinions on:

• Whether Mary died or was simply assumed into heaven
• Who constitutes an ECF
• Communion on the tongue or the hand
• Whether Mary had labor pains
• Confession face to face or behind a screen

The contrast between the list is quite telling, don’t you think? Major doctrinal disputes in Protestantism vs minor minutiae in the Catholic Church.

And yes, I am not being exhaustive in the Catholic list, but it illustrates my point quite well.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Their conclusions on justification are at harmony with the NT. A reading of Calvin or Luther on this for example, their work allows for the NT to speak for itself in all it’s perspicuity.
.

Well, for me, I don’t want man-made conclusions that are “at harmony” with the NT. I want what the NT, Jesus, and the apostles actually teach. Quite a different thing.

If the NT has such perspicuity, why do we need long winded books by Calvin and Luther?

 

[KathleenGee]

PRMerger just shared a number of differing opinions among Protestants, to the point that if they disagree with one point or another, start a new denomination.

My pastor had a Luthern minister visited, and his observations noted the unity we had in our congregation of many diverse type of people, with – as my pastor noted – along with all their differing opinions.

This unity is binding, and it does not come from us. It comes from our fidelity to Christ – and at many times – inspite of, our differences, personal errors and behaviors.

IF Martin Luther had hung in there and remained faithful to his sacred vows, and endured with the truth of his convictions in reforming the Church, he possibly could have been a saint.

 

[Randal796]

IF Martin Luther had hung in there and remained faithful to his sacred vows, and endured with the truth of his convictions in reforming the Church, he possibly could have been a saint.

Of course calling the pope anti-christ didn’t help his cause. Does that make Luther a false prophet? Since that Pope (Leo X) wasn’t the AC and therefore the events surrounding the end of things didn’t happen…?

What’s with the speedometer warning?

 

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

No Luther had no intent on going anywhere, the he left through his own free-will, documented history.

Indeed, he had no intent of leaving, he was forced out. Differing interpretations of history between us.

The Creed is known through the Ecumenical Councils, no-where does it state “justification through faith alone” false by your own admission.

I am speaking of early protestant creeds and confessions, not the ecumenical ones.

In this regard, how so?

As I’ve said, you can legitimately adhere to Thomistic or Molinistic views on predestination, and on material sufficiency vs partim partim.

Where does the Bible state this “specifically”?

I am simply saying Gary that the first century apostles were unique…

Show me the “countless” Catholic witness against?
Papal Infallibility already existed 1-2nd century, You never proved it didn’t exist, nor is there any reason to believe it didn’t. Example; “Fr Hardon Archives”

I will refrain from posting it all here, and simply link to Phillip Schaff’s ‘Creeds of Christendom’ chapter ‘Papal infallibility explained, and tested by scripture and tradition’ - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.xiii.html
Of note is the numerous catholic scholars, indeed the very greatest of them (Bishop Karl Josef von Hefele), who at the time of Vatican 1, we’re firmly opposed to it becoming a dogma and indeed went to great lengths to prove (successfully) its historical impossibility…

No issue with Scripture, its “Sola Scriptura” stray such as with “Justification by Faith Alone” as we see through this thread. There is but one teaching authority and its the same one which has always existed!

“You are Peter and Upon this Rock [you] I will build my Church” To [you Peter] I will give the Keys of thre Kingdom! All singular in every language and translation. There is no You Guys, You-All, Fellows, My Apostles…No its “You-Peter” Ist person singular.

And then Christ did exactly this, and this continues to exist as God willed 2000 years later. Looks infallible to me, sounds infallable to me, perhaps its infallible.

Hmm, I thought I developed?
On the classic proof text of Matt 16:18, I quite like Cyprians understanding: Peter is the rock. Yet all bishops are Peter, none with a greater authority than another, all equals… : christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

You actually believe in this selective understanding?

Yes. The episcopacy in Rome is an early second century development.

Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, best known and most ancient of all.

The famous Ireneaus quote… I listed earlier in the thread how when actually studied, this has been proven to not say quite what Rome wants it to say today…

Who is “in” this invisable church? Who has been Glorified by God here we can witness? I see None in the Reformed Church…who?

I do see through history the Church Triumphant who celebrate the eternal redemptive event. The Saints who are documented, proved through discernment thus verified in the “Catholic Church” where is this in the “Reformed Theology” which pays no due respect to Gods Elect in 2000 years. Severe breach in the Kingdom of God I would say.

The invisible church Gary, as I’ve said, is known only to God,it is the elect whom he has redeemed.

Where do we not pay respect to the fathers? The Institutes is packed full of citations from the fathers! My copy has 10 pages of index where the fathers are cited, hundreds of quotations.

Kind regards, Gary

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

'zactly.

Here’s a list of all the areas in which Protestants cannot agree, even if they read the very same Bible:

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism-- Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• Women pastors, no women pastors

Here’s a list that I’ve come up with on what Catholicism allows differing opinions on:

• Whether Mary died or was simply assumed into heaven
• Who constitutes an ECF
• Communion on the tongue or the hand
• Whether Mary had labor pains
• Confession face to face or behind a screen

The contrast between the list is quite telling, don’t you think? Major doctrinal disputes in Protestantism vs minor minutiae in the Catholic Church.

And yes, I am not being exhaustive in the Catholic list, but it illustrates my point quite well.

PR, do your chalky think Protestants who support abortion and deny the Trinity are actually faithful to scripture? Your presupposition is that scripture is unclear on major issues…

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

'zactly.

Here’s a list of all the areas in which Protestants cannot agree, even if they read the very same Bible:

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism-- Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• Women pastors, no women pastors

Here’s a list that I’ve come up with on what Catholicism allows differing opinions on:

• Whether Mary died or was simply assumed into heaven
• Who constitutes an ECF
• Communion on the tongue or the hand
• Whether Mary had labor pains
• Confession face to face or behind a screen

The contrast between the list is quite telling, don’t you think? Major doctrinal disputes in Protestantism vs minor minutiae in the Catholic Church.

And yes, I am not being exhaustive in the Catholic list, but it illustrates my point quite well.

PR, do your actually think Protestants who support abortion and deny the Trinity are actually faithful to scripture? Your presupposition is that scripture is unclear on major issues…

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Well, for me, I don’t want man-made conclusions that are “at harmony” with the NT. I want what the NT, Jesus, and the apostles actually teach. Quite a different thing.

If the NT has such perspicuity, why do we need long winded books by Calvin and Luther?

Westminster confession:

1. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.q

(p) 2 Pet 3:16
(q) Ps 119:105,130; Deut 29:29; Deut 30:10-14; Acts 17:11

 

[Lincoln7]

Of course calling the pope anti-christ didn’t help his cause. Does that make Luther a false prophet? Since that Pope (Leo X) wasn’t the AC and therefore the events surrounding the end of things didn’t happen…?

What’s with the speedometer warning?

Posts are limited to 1000. We are at almost 950 now… Need to wrap it up at some point.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

PR, do your** chalky think **Protestants who support abortion and deny the Trinity are actually faithful to scripture? Your presupposition is that scripture is unclear on major issues…

Lincs

Chalky? Huh?

 

[Lincoln7]

Hey Linc…have you thought of your next thread? We are nearing the 1000 post mark…

Anyway, I want to apologize if I did not come across as being charitable to you…I usually ask blunt and direct questions.

I want to commend you for your discussions and being charitable and reasonableness…God bless…and God speed…

Forgiven, not that I had thought you uncharitable anyway!

Next thread… Well I may take a break for a few days or weeks, then im feeling something on Calvinistic soteriology Something where we can discuss what’s in scripture, as opposed to endlessly debating how it got to us and other epistemologically type stuff!

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Chalky? Huh?

I reposted it without the typo, it was supposed to say “actually” instead of chalky! Ios5 autocorrect again…

 

[PRmerger]

PR, do your actually think Protestants who support abortion and deny the Trinity are actually faithful to scripture? Your presupposition is that scripture is unclear on major issues…

Lincs

Well, that’s my point. They are following *your *paradigm. And, as such, **you cannot deny them their right to come to these conclusions.
**

IOW: when you say that they cannot propose these things you are using the Catholic paradigm that there is indeed an authentic interpretation of Scripture.

Your paradigm of “Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit” leads to people using their bible and coming to the conclusion that there is no Trinity or that abortion is fine.

 

[Lincoln7]

Well, that’s my point. They are following *your *paradigm. And, as such, **you cannot deny them their right to come to these conclusions.
**

IOW: when you say that they cannot propose these things you are using the Catholic paradigm that there is indeed an authentic interpretation of Scripture.

Your paradigm of “Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit” leads to people using their bible and coming to the conclusion that there is no Trinity or that abortion is fine.

That’s not my paradigm?

If they come to such conclusions, they are unfaithful to scripture. The clarity of scripture is not the issue, it’s the unstable twisting it, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:16).

Likewise if a Catholic goes against church teaching on something, you would also state, the issue is not the church teaching, but the unfaithful person.

Lincs