Catholic vs Protestant Spirituality: Lets compare faith walks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“ There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it ” Origins of Papal Infallibility, Brian Tierney page 274

You will have to find it in a library. It is over $800 on Amazon. Parts of it are available on Google Books
 
🤔 His position is an interesting one. Now, there’s always a possibility that a Catholic would have a dissenting opinion. If it was me in your position, in researching the matter: In all honesty, I would cross reference and see if multiple reliable sources say the same thing.
 
Interesting. There’s always a possibility of dissenting opinion. Good academic training doesn’t preclude one from being wrong.

It’s possible that Tierney may have misunderstood these monks and the papal decision on the matter.

But, for the sake of intellectual honesty; I’ll do some research for myself.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
Brian is a part of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
So was Luther, Calvin and Zwingly. Individuals have no authority to define and declare doctrine. This Magisterium is he teaching office of the Church, composed of the bishops in union wi the pope. Though I’m sure Brian is a nice guy.
 
Last edited:
When I first started seriously looking into the claims of the Catholic church I talked to a man with a Phd in Church history. He gave me some great advice. He said to read history books by historians, not theologians. He said historians say what history says (and doesn’t say) and theologians use history to try and prove their theology is correct. He also told me that many of the best church historians are Catholic and they will publish what the find, even if it goes against long held Catholic doctrine.

I’ve found this to be the truth. I found another Catholic historian who said that until the year 150 or so the Roman church was oversaw by a college of bishops and that there was no single “Bishop of Rome” as Rome was the last of the major churches to have a Monarchical Bishop.
 
Well, if it’s not true – and the RCC or Orthodox Churches are teaching error, then so much for Jesus promise of providing “all the truth” to the Church in John 16:3.

And so much for the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)

And so much for the gates of Hell not prevailing against us (Matt 16)

How much do you trust the bible you have as being 100% true and in it’s correct form, since it’s that same untrustworthy institution that compiled and preserved it?
 
Here’s my thing: Who do I believe when I’m in conflict: A lay historian or the Magisterium and Scripture?

As a good Catholic, it has to be the latter.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Well, if it’s not true – and the RCC or Orthodox Churches are teaching error, then so much for Jesus promise of providing “all the truth” to the Church in John 16:3.

And so much for the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)

And so much for the gates of Hell not prevailing against us (Matt 16)
Click to expand...
Not if you define church as we define the universal church. That is “God’s People” or “Those called out by God”.

God’s people (not the institution) are the pillar and foundation of the truth. The gates of Hell will not prevail (that is overcome) God’s people.
 
Sounds nice in theory, but sorta defeats the purpose of Jesus establishing an authoritative, united Church, though.

Scenario:

My wife wants an abortion.

I’m Catholic, she is Presbyterian USA.

I instruct her that this is sinful and not to do it. She does not listen to me. I do as the Gospels tells me to in Matt 18. I take 2 or 3 believers to her and try to work it out.

I take it EVEN to the Church(final authority) as Jesus says and my Church says it’s wrong don’t do it, and her Church says abortion is not always wrong, just pray about it and it’s your decision.

So Matthew 18 can not be properly enforced and you can’t have ALL truth as Jesus promised.
 
Michael16 said:
As a good Catholic, it has to be the latter.
Click to expand...
I would expect nothing less.

It is just that I see Catholics appeal to history as proving Catholicism. However, history is a messy thing and most things are not black and white. We see clues and hints more often than we see absolutes. And sometimes even the seemingly absolutes turn out to be nothing more than legends or something created or claimed to gain power or wealth.

In some places, where Catholics see teachings as being clarified and defined we see new teachings that were not part of the “Deposit of faith” that was left by Christ and taught by the apostles.

I’ve probably read 6 or 7 church history books by both Catholic and Protestant historians. They both say the sames things happened.
 
Here lies the problem with Sola Scriptura, Ianman87:

At the heart of the Protestant movements and Sola Scriptura was a suspicion of authority and who interprets Scripture.

Throw out any and all authority to interpret and declare what Scripture teaches renders Christ’s Message an exegetical free for all and may the most persuasive argument win.
 
I would say we all have decisions to make. You can’t make someone not sin and if someone wants to find justification for their sin they will find it. If not the Presbyterian Church USA then the Unitarian church down the street. People have been defining God in their image since the beginning.
 
Jesus essentially tells us in Matthew 18 you ex-communicate the person who wont listen to the authoritative church he established.

If he has no united Church with authority then Matt 18 cant stand.

No universal Church and I get ex-communicated from the “Greater Macedonia Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God from the Americas” then I just walk across the street to the UMC and persist in my sin.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
Throw out any and all authority to interpret and declare what Scripture teaches renders Christ’s Message an exegetical free for all and may the most persuasive argument win.
Click to expand...
That’s fine except Catholics don’t just interpret scripture. They also interpret “Tradition” and make it equal to scripture. My problem with modern Catholic doctrine is that “Tradition” doesn’t have had to have been part of the Deposit of Faith that was taught by the Apostles. Tradition has become whatever Catholics want it to be.

What those historians say (Both protestant and Catholic) is that in the early church the “deposit of faith” was the oral and written teachings of the apostles. And later, to keep the deposit of faith from be corrupted by gnostics (who claimed a special oral teaching directly from the apostles) the early church canonized the scriptures and developed the early creeds as a way to pass on the Deposit of Faith and keep the Gospel message in tact for future generations.

As a result, for the early church, In the first few centuries after Christ, oral and written tradition was thought of as being the same thing. The “canon” was acknowledged in either form. It wasn’t until the 4th Century that the first idea that not everything the Apostles said was written in scripture (which is what the gnostics taught) and that Tradition and Scripture are something different.

This was dangerous as suddenly anything that became popular or appealing to the church could be claimed as part of “Tradition” even though it wasn’t in the Scriptures (and wasn’t in the original deposit of faith) The reformers didn’t want to abandon tradition. They wanted to go back to the “Deposit of faith”, which is the tradition handed on by the apostles and is confirmed by the scriptures.
 
Unless you take away the freedom of religion then this will always be the case.
 
History, yeah, but it’s more than that - it’s the pedigree. The laying on of hands and transfer of authority that dates back all the way to Moses and Joshua.

Something we also see around the world in politics or where ever an office is filled. There’s a process and succession involved. Trump doesn’t just declare himself the president. Nor does just anyone have the authority to interpret the constitution and make binding decisions, only the supreme court does.

Because I agree with you that history is sketchy. And many within the Church have been less than model citizens.
 
Point taken. I understand that Sola Scriptura, flawed as it is, is your safety net.

And if it were any other Church other than Catholic or Eastern Orthodox making such a claim, I would totally disregard it. But since they are the source of the scriptures(humanely speaking) It can not be disregarded. So it’s good that you are at least looking into it and examining the arguments on both sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top