Catholics and Protestants, where is the Truth?

[Contarini]

My question is:

why is it so hard for protestants to accept that the Truth that the CC is The One True Church found by Christ Himself. since no one can point out no other than Christ found this Church.

Maybe because it’s not as obvious as you think. That is almost always the case when a great many apparently intelligent and sincere people don’t see something that you think is obvious. Instead of trying to “enlighten” them, you might try to see the world from their standpoint.

I don’t even understand your syntax very well, and the argument is a bogus one. Never mind the fact that many Catholic Biblical scholars don’t think Christ intended to found a Church in the first place. Even if that point is granted, there is no way to “prove” that the present Roman Communion is identical with the Church Christ founded. Sure, you can prove continuity, but continuity isn’t identity. You can “prove” identity in certain carefully selected respects and declare all the differences irrelevant. But at that point you have left proof–or even argument–and moved to bare, self-serving assertion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.**

You seem ignorant of the fact that by your own Church’s admission the Eastern Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and I believe the Church of the East as well), besides the Old Catholics in the West, have valid orders and enjoy the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This leaves aside the many Western Christians (Anglicans, Lutherans, and many in other traditions as well) who believe in the Real Presence, even if you don’t actually think we have it and even if we define it a bit differently.

And furthermore, your arguments are based on highly imaginative Biblical interpretation. One could think of perfectly plausible and reasonable alternative interpretations of both passages. Indeed, a case could be made that both of your interpretations are allegorical rather than literal (defining these terms in the Thomistic sense). And it is a well-established principle of traditional Catholic Biblical interpretation (going back at least to Augustine and accepted throughout the Middle Ages) that only the literal level of Scripture can be used to establish doctrine.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My friend. you already know the answer to that. i dont have to tell you.

If we all know the answer already, why did you bother to post at all?

You are dodging the fact that you can’t support your claims.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Second, there was only one Denomination, and it was called Catholic by St. Ignatius around 100A.D… Catholic just means universal. But for 1000 years, there was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and they all followed the Pope in Rome.

Well, at least you know about the East/West schism. But you do not mention the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Montanists, the Novatianists, or the Donatists, just to name the larger and more long-term of the alternative Christian groups that existed before A.D. 1000 (there were many smaller groups, and many temporary schisms, including frequent East-West schisms before 1054). And I am only mentioning groups that held to basic Christian doctrines (as defined by the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds). Obviously there were many more heretical groups such as the Arians, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, etc.

Please note: I am not making a form of the “Trail of Blood” argument. I claim descent from the historic Catholic Church, not from any of the groups I have mentioned. I’m simply pointing out that there have been several different churches holding to basic Christian doctrine (as defined by the Creeds) since at least the late 2nd century.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But I’d remind you of some things: Luther didn’t leave, he was excommunicated. It’s hard to work “within” when you are kicked out.

Based on Brecht’s account (I mention Brecht because he’s a Lutheran himself and because his biography is probably the most authoritative and detailed), Luther had come to the conclusion tha the Papacy was Antichrist before he was excommunicated. Luther’s rejection of the “Catholic Church” (as defined by the hierarchy in union with the Pope–obviously Luther didn’t think he was rejecting or leaving the true Catholic Church at any point in his career) and the Church’s rejection of him seem to me to have proceeded together in a vicious, mutually reinforcing spiral. I don’t think either side can legitimately opt out of responsibility by claiming that it was only responding to the actions of the other. The question of which has the greater responsibility turns on the question whether an individual theologian or the hierarchy of the Church has a greater responsibility to show humility and restraint in judging the other.

Also, how does one “reform” a church body that demands that it alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, and that all must accept whatever it alone says “with docility” (Catholic Catechism # 87, for example)?

It’s a problem. But it is, at worst, no more serious than the problem posed by an individual theologian who identifies his opinions with the Word of God and condemns as heretical anyone who dares to disagree with him, as Luther did.

For an example of someone who worked within the Church, see Erasmus (there were many such people, including the cardinal whose name I use as an alias, but Erasmus is the most famous). Erasmus’s writings were indeed eventually condemned, but I think it’s fair to suggest that this might not have happened if not for the hierarchy’s reaction to Protestantism.

Luther may have built on Erasmus’s work in some ways, but he destroyed it in others. And Luther himself emphasized the latter, not the former. (You may think that this was a good thing–I’m simply pointing out that there was a well-known alternative path already laid out before Luther came on the scene.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually, the religion founded by Christ comprises those truths, precepts, and means of salvation by which its professors are united with God and, in virtue of this union, with one another.

That assumes that we are united to God and one another by abstract things such as “truths” and “precepts.” I question this.

The Christian religion is unchangeable if the sum total of its doctrine, as preached by the Apostles, is to remain ever the same.

I’m not quite sure what the “sum total of its doctrine” means. If you mean the entire body of things taught publicly within the Church, then this unchangeability obviously does not exist. Obviously there are things you would be highly likely to hear in a sermon or read in a Church pronouncement in one era that you would be unlikely to hear in another. Presumably you mean something more limited than this. But defining what that “something” is turns out to be pretty much impossible, and any attempt to do it cannot avoid special pleading. In other words, anyone who tries to define exactly what this “sum total” is (as contrasted to the literal sum of everything found in sermons, doctrinal treatises, church documents, etc., at any given time) will use criteria that serve some particular agenda. You pre-select the needed criteria and presto! you have proved that your Church has never changed.

That it will remain the same we are assured, on the one hand, by the commission given by Christ to His Apostles and their successors

Non sequitur.

and, on the other hand, by the promise made to them (Matthew 28: 18-20).

Non sequitur.

Christ charges His Apostles and their successors to preach to the end of time that doctrine which He precisely defined,

He did absolutely nothing of the kind.

and which, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they afterwards rightly understood;

Petitio principii.

and to them and their successors, as preachers of His doctrine, He promises His never failing assistance.

Certainly–but you make a lot of assumptions about just what it was He promised to assist them to do.

His intention was, therefore, that the entirety of His doctrine, which He had entrusted to them, should endure to the end of time

In a static, unchangeing way? Again, this is what you need to prove. You can’t just assume it.

I see that you consider yourself a Protestant. Well then, you should realize that for the unchangeableness of doctrine it is required that no dogma be set aside, no new article added, and no point of doctrine interpeted contrary to its original meaning.

Why should we “realize” this? What reason can you give for us to accept your assertion as true?

You seem to think that you can just bludgeon Protestants into accepting your premises by fiat.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

Maybe because it’s not as obvious as you think. That is almost always the case when a great many apparently intelligent and sincere people don’t see something that you think is obvious. Instead of trying to “enlighten” them, you might try to see the world from their standpoint.

I don’t even understand your syntax very well, and the argument is a bogus one. Never mind the fact that many Catholic Biblical scholars don’t think Christ intended to found a Church in the first place. Even if that point is granted, there is no way to “prove” that the present Roman Communion is identical with the Church Christ founded. Sure, you can prove continuity, but continuity isn’t identity. You can “prove” identity in certain carefully selected respects and declare all the differences irrelevant. But at that point you have left proof–or even argument–and moved to bare, self-serving assertion.

Edwin

Catholic Biblical scholars, humnnnn…

who are they?

**St. Clement of Rome

[47, 6] Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.**