Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[MichaelP3]

My scepticism would rather be attributed to the fact that these seats failed to work in unison. It ended with one seat claiming supreme authority without the others buying into it.

This may be of topic but do present to me something of a concern as well.

Something I found recently on how the Council of Carthage 419 was opened. Nothing about a Roman Pope.
“In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors, Honorius for the XIIth time and Theodosius for the VIIIth, Augusti most exalted, on the Calends of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus. When Aurelius the bishop presided over the whole council, the deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together in the holy synod of the Church of Carthage to define”

How they refer to the Bishop of ROme, seems like they see Rome as equal
“we, by the letters from our insignificance, must more fully inform our holy brother and fellow bishop Boniface of everything which we have considered”

Again, purely Bishop of Rome
“Letters ought also to be sent to the Bishop of the Church of Rome in commendation of the legates”

And Can 17 at the council, and also something that seems like they don’t accept Rome’s authority over them
Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”
(The significance here, is that Africa felt they could reject Rome’s decision, and even exclude the person from African Churches. Seems like they see themselves as having some authority that Rome cannot overrule, even something minor contradicts any Pope=Supreme head of the Church idea)

 

[mattp0625]

My scepticism would rather be attributed to the fact that these seats failed to work in unison. It ended with one seat claiming supreme authority without the others buying into it.

Irenaeus of Lyon attested to this in his second century writings… That Peter and Paul founded the church with preeminent authority in Rome.

Even Ignatius of Antioch, an eastern bishop in the first century, recognized that the church in Rome instructed others.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have absolutely no problem with you believing in a Catholic Magisterium. I don’t personally from my side believe it will do anything to your salvation just like I don’t believe a Baptist or a Anglican is doing something “wrong”. Well wrong is I guess a matter of perspective (Obviously not for those obvious ones). And I really mean this sincere and not sarcastic.

I am currently doing some research into the Orthodox Church and I must say I am more inclined to there belief. I am still a far way so I am not converting pretty soon . But just something like having no distinction between sins. Although yea, one can argue murder is worse than telling a lie, but that’s not the point. In Catholicism there is a clear cut distinction and even literally a list of mortal sins. Where it seems that with Orthodoxy, they rather leave this question to God and dare not interfere. I have a hard time taking the current Catholic Church as the absolute truth given basically everything. And even if some may be the truth, the claim to infallibility would make even one contradiction the catalyst for denying all the other. That is making me very skeptical.

Being a Protestant makes a lot more sense to me, as we also have many controversies but we don’t claim infallibility.

So asking when it ended is a very valid question and I would love to see a current infallible institution.

During all my comments I hope I didn’t sound like " I am right, come and be Protestant". I was rather just asking “Why be Catholic?”. As to me Catholicism comes forth as infallible as every other Protestant denomination (including my own) and thus I cannot say you are wrong. But I cannot say I feel Catholicism is right either.

I came close to becoming Orthodox as well. They are a very warm Christian community with ancient roots and of course have valid Eucharist.

Actually, the Marian Dogmas were a big hurdle for me until i did further research and became more comfortable with them. And like you said, Orthodoxy usually stops short of defining things, even though they have similar beliefs on the blessed Mother, the Eucharist, purgatory and whatever else. You are given a little leeway and that’s comforting if you have a protestant background and cant come to grips with infallibility.

Best of wishes and God bless you on your journey.

 

[rcwitness]

Just like you put a flash drive in your computer and print something, think of it like the flash drive came from heaven, and the writer is the printer. You can’t praise the printer for the content.

If by “praise” you mean worship, then I agree. If by “praise” you mean express gratitude, honor, admiration, etc. I don’t agree. A printer is an amazing piece of work. Their creator is revealed through its appreciation.

By your definition anything an Apostle wrote is scripture? Although we know very well about Peter being rebuked by Paul. So they can be wrong, although as soon as they write it is Scripture? This seems rather to support us as anything the Apostles did means nothing if not for the Holy Spirit.

Peter was rebuked for his behavior which contradicted what he preached. He did not write or instruct anyone to withdraw from the Gentile converts! If an Apostle wrote something about the faith and morals to the churches, I have no doubt it would be received as Scripture. St Peter tells us, all of Paul’s letter are Scripture.

The issue was knowing which writings were genuinely Apostolic, and that included all of their parts as well. Some sources had passages which others did not.

 

[commenter]

My scepticism would rather be attributed to the fact that these seats failed to work in unison. It ended with one seat claiming supreme authority without the others buying into it.

There may have been various seats of personal authority. But they emerged from ancient times with essentially one template. The NT canon is almost identical. The basic understanding of ancient Christian doctrine is almost identical. The various ancient seats accept the same ECF’s and reject the same heretics.

There were several competing ancient Christian religions, differing enormously in doctrine. Only one template emerged. The others were rejected, and mostly disappeared. Sounds like a template maker existed.

 

[Michael68]

We may resort to Scripture: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

LOL, now you will get an argument on the size of rocks!

 

[MichaelP3]

Irenaeus of Lyon attested to this in his second century writings… That Peter and Paul founded the church with preeminent authority in Rome.

Even Ignatius of Antioch, an eastern bishop in the first century, recognized that the church in Rome instructed others.

I don’t think you understand my point. Please read the post that followed that one that shows the the Church in Rome did instruct but it stated they should not obey.

Even so, I talk about 1054 until now. You agree Orthodox have the real presence, you also say God would never split his true church?. Seems to me like a conundrum.

 

[MichaelP3]

So then, what part does the promised Holy Spirit play in all of this controversy. It just seems to me that Protestant’s confess the Holy Spirit, but deny its power.

I never pretended to have the answer. I leave it to God. Just seems like everyone else apparently has the answer!

 

[MichaelP3]

If by “praise” you mean worship, then I agree. If by “praise” you mean express gratitude, honor, admiration, etc. I don’t agree. A printer is an amazing piece of work. Their creator is revealed through its appreciation.

And it’s your full right to feel that way

Peter was rebuked for his behavior which contradicted what he preached. He did not write or instruct anyone to withdraw from the Gentile converts! If an Apostle wrote something about the faith and morals to the churches, I have no doubt it would be received as Scripture. St Peter tells us, all of Paul’s letter are Scripture.

The issue was knowing which writings were genuinely Apostolic, and that included all of their parts as well. Some sources had passages which others did not.

And I am glad we have a very wonderful Bible!

 

[MichaelP3]

There may have been various seats of personal authority. But they emerged from ancient times with essentially one template. The NT canon is almost identical. The basic understanding of ancient Christian doctrine is almost identical. The various ancient seats accept the same ECF’s and reject the same heretics.

There were several competing ancient Christian religions, differing enormously in doctrine. Only one template emerged. The others were rejected, and mostly disappeared. Sounds like a template maker existed.

Could you elaborate on this. I have found it’s apparently a matter of perspective in these kinds of discussions. And what is the significance of it being basic? Is there something wrong with the “not” basic differences?

 

[rcwitness]

I never pretended to have the answer. I leave it to God. Just seems like everyone else apparently has the answer!

Hmmm… you leave the Holy Spirit to God?

I know that’s not what you meant, but we believe the Spirit guides and gives personal understanding. I know you do as well, and probably even more “personal affirmation” than us, since we believe He also uses His Church Elders as ministers with authority.

Your comment just struck me as a bit of a cop-out. You claim His guidance here and then say, you leave it to Him.

 

[rcwitness]

And it your full right to feel that way… And I am glad we have a very wonderful Bible!

1 Timothy 5:17

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching

 

[JMM1957]

I have a hard time taking the current Catholic Church as the absolute truth given basically everything. And even if some may be the truth, the claim to infallibility would make even one contradiction the catalyst for denying all the other. That is making me very skeptical.

Being a Protestant makes a lot more sense to me, as we also have many controversies but we don’t claim infallibility.

Has there been “a contradiction” in your mind?

How does Protestantism makes a lot more sense to you, outside of the infallibility issue?

 

[MichaelP3]

Has there been “a contradiction” in your mind?

How does Protestantism makes a lot more sense to you, outside of the infallibility issue?

That’s the thing about Catholicism. EVERYTHING (and there is quite a lot) is true! And something doesn’t add up.

Protestantism may also not add up. But not claiming infallibility doesn’t make that the problem.

 

[JMM1957]

That’s the thing about Catholicism. EVERYTHING (and there is quite a lot) is true! And something doesn’t add up.

So its just a feeling you get then?

 

[mattp0625]

That’s the thing about Catholicism. EVERYTHING (and there is quite a lot) is true! And something doesn’t add up.

Protestantism may also not add up. But not claiming infallibility doesn’t make that the problem.

There might be a slight misconception about infallibility.

Everything that comes out of the pope’s mouth is not considered infallible.

It applies when the pope issues certain documents that are backed by the college of cardinals under the authority of the seat of Peter.

In other words, the authority granted by Jesus to the church, shown in Matthew 16 and Matthew 28, is applied. The magisterium backs the pope’s document and collectively mitigates him from writing error.

These are reasons why the “rebuke of Paul” argument does not add up.

The primacy of the Roman see, as a result of its connection to Peter and as granted by Jesus, is then demonstrated by historical writings, particularly Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Tertullian.

 

[MichaelP3]

So its just a feeling you get then?

No, I have stated numerous reasons right through this thread. Obviously to a Catholic it makes total sense. That’s why I went through the assumption discussion and so on. For every argument there is a counter argument and those can go on forever. To a Protestant some would seem ridiculous and and the other way around. It always ends with infallibility and Catholics are right because that’s just how it is. Which is an assumption again to a Protestant if that’s not properly discussed. So then it starts all over.

 

[MichaelP3]

There might be a slight misconception about infallibility.

Everything that comes out of the pope’s mouth is not considered infallible.

It applies when the pope issues certain documents that are backed by the college of cardinals under the authority of the seat of Peter.

In other words, the authority granted by Jesus to the church, shown in Matthew 16 and Matthew 28, is applied. The magisterium backs the pope’s document and collectively mitigates him from writing error.

These are reasons why the “rebuke of Paul” argument does not add up.

The primacy of the Roman see, as a result of its connection to Peter and as granted by Jesus, is then demonstrated by historical writings, particularly Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Tertullian.

I’m not just talking about the Pope (I saw that one was constructed very well. Although some historical things make me wonder) . More in a sense that the Catholic Church is/has Always been right. And that led to numerous material where every controversy has to be carefully defended not to contradict this.

 

[mattp0625]

I’m not just talking about the Pope (I saw that one was constructed very well. Although some historical things make me wonder) . More in a sense that the Catholic Church is/has Always been right. And that led to numerous material where every controversy has to be carefully defended not to contradict this.

It’s core dogma has been in place since the beginning.

The authority granted to its bishops has also been there since the beginning.

You admit that the reformers cannot say the same on either of these?

Interesting to note that Calvin thought himself a prophet and did not want his authority to interpret scripture challenged.

 

[MichaelP3]

It’s core dogma has been in place since the beginning.

The authority granted to its bishops has also been there since the beginning.

You admit that the reformers cannot say the same on either of these?

Interesting to note that Calvin thought himself a prophet and did not want his authority to interpret scripture challenged.

Yea I know that’s what Catholics say about it. And Carthage 419(as one example) makes me wonder if that is really the case. The fact that we have an Orthodox Church also makes me wonder. Because a Dogma is supposedly nothing new but has always been believed.

I once had a conversation with a Catholic who assumed the Reformers don’t say that because they think they can’t. While in fact they don’t believe anyone can.

John Calvin was a mere human with an idea. Whatever he thought isn’t binding in any way. Even to the Reformed denomination. We can say this if people had crazy ideas while Catholics have to defend everything.