different Protestant...

[puzzleannie]

if the original question way back there was “why are there so many different Protestant denominations, and what makes them different?” it seems many of the differences arose from political and ethnic differences in the various European countries where these sects arose. The history of medieval Christianity is largely a history of conflict between the papacy and the empire, with the popes asserting their authority over Church governance against kings and emperors. A hallmark of both Lutheranism and Calvinism is subjection of the Church to the civil authority, which led to differences in how the churches in various jurisdictions developed.

Another source of difference is in church governance, whether or not to have bishops, to have presbyters or elders, whether or not the congregation is the ultimate authority and decision making body. Another source of difference is in whether ministers are ordained (which implies some type of authority to train and confer ordination) or answer something they discern as a personal call from God to preach. In tracing the history of sects that broke away from the first reformed churches, it usually appears the conflict is about interpretation of a few bible verses, taken in isolation and interpreted without reference to Tradition, or to the rest of the bible. An example would be the Mennonites and Amish, and their interpretation of biblical injunctions on how to live, dress, use of technology etc.

 

[Booklover]

"*His Church teaches just one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles and this is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us." *

Dear Catholic friend, you work against yourself!

That’s the biggest problem that I have with the Catholic church. centering far too heavily on earthly things. “So often it seems as though you place the teachings of your physical, earthly church above the teachings of Christ. From my perspective, you are Moth and Rust” destroy. That was Luther’s problem with your church, that is why Lutherans have chosen to identify themselves as Lutheran. Really, we mean “Christian”

First of all your greeting sounds Fundamentalist!

Second I suppose you’re trying to say that I’m not a "Christian!

You know, I’ve yet to see ONE Protestant on this forum who really wants to know what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches!

You all seem to think that you’re authorities on the Church! Furthermore, all you want to do is rant and rave against our Church!

The Church is the Bride of Christ! Do you remember what Jesus said to Paul when he was persecuting the Church? He did not say “Why are you persecuting my Church?” He said “WHY ARE YOU PERSECUTING ME?”

I’m not going to waste any more time with your posts! I’m thoroughly disgusted with your arrogance and contempt for our Church!

 

[Malachi4U]

Paris Blues:

Why are there many Protestant denominations? I mean, there’s Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.!! What’s so different about them?

That’s an easy question to answer.

Scripture states to be of one mind and one body. Scripture states not to be schismatics. Scripture states His Church (i.e. Catholic) will allways be persecuted. Scriputre states to remain loyal to our leaders. Jesus gave us a Church and not a book, the book comes from His Church based on Tradition. The Bible IS Catholic Tradition! Thank God most protestants still base thier belief on the Tradition of the Catholic Church by using at least an abrideged and somewhat edited version of Catholic scripture (i.e. Tradition). This keeps some truth in their sects and will still give them a true ‘Hope’ for salvation.

Satan seeks to schism Christ’s earthly body and to implant false teachers and beliefs thus the protestants and the other schimatics prior to them. The result is a seemingly endless number of protestant schisims amongst themselves. They believe in sefl-interpretation and as a result they pick and choose or invent what they want to believe at will. To any whim or fancy, as the wind changes. Since the Holy Ghost is in them they claim whatever they believe is from the Holy Ghost/Jesus. If it feels good it must be from God? Right? Satan would never tell us something to do that feels good would he? Satan could not be in any of us right?

Fear not and worry not. Christ promised to be with His Church till the end of time. Other sects split off before the protestants and they all failed and came home to the Catholic Church. If you project out the protestant schism you will see that it too is failing and they will also come home to the Catholic Church. Christs truth and His Catholic Church will survive because He is with it and protects it. In England (Anglican) and Germany(Lutheran) you will see the utter failure of the protestant schism and the return to Catholicism. NAZI Gerany killed 3.5 MILLION Catholics and still failed at destroying His Church. Here in the US you will see the utter moral failure that is spreading in our protestant country. Abortion, practicing homosexual protestant clergy, protestants married gays, seperation of church and state, condems passed out in school, etc… This moral failure will stop when our nation turns back to Christ and His Church. Even some Catholics have fallen into this moral abyss here in the US, but, the Church has not. The Church will continue to teach Faith and Morals and the missguided Catholics will correct themselves. The Catholics had/have a sex scandal of their own, but the Church is coreecting the problem (OK, a bit too slow for some).

We are all sinners and thus we all sin. The Catholics will wonder too but the Church will continue to correct us as Christ is in it.

Jesus will protect His Church and be with it so as a Catholic by desire I know I am with Christ and He will prevail and now I have a true ‘HOPE’ for salvation in the future.

 

[Exporter]

Lutheran Student, You wrote," “CONCLUSION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.”

You contend that St. Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of Sola Scriptura , is that true? I noticed you did not have even one line from Summa Theologica to back this up. You picked a big name, are you name dropping?

Pressed for time now, will be back later. Stop and think. Do you actually believe that IF St. Thomas A. promulgated Sola Scriptura that he would not have been castigated by the Holy See? Back later.

 

[LutheranStudent]

“I’m not going to waste any more time with your posts! I’m thoroughly disgusted with your arrogance and contempt for our Church!”
**
I love the church with a greater love than you will ever know. I love it beyond tradition. I love it beyond pomp and earthly ‘authority’. I love it because the church is the body of Christ. I am grafted to Christ as a branch to the vine, His life supplies my life. Pity me if ever I should go against His teachings in favor of the teachings of men!

Christ’s church is not a visible authority. Indeed, there is no authority outside of Christ. That is why I do not answer to Catholic tradition. Jesus said that “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.” He did not say that “If you stay with the oldest, most erranous, most perverted rendition of my gospel soley because it has become “a tradition” you are really my disciples.”

This will probably be my last posting ~ there are many people joining who have not been here before and are (intentionally or otherwise) avoiding the real issues. I may visit again this coming weekend, but until I do keep this in mind:

Postings #56, #57 and #58 leave the Church fathers screaming, “Sola Scriptura!” Who from the Catholic church will answer them?

God’s Blessings,
Lutheran Student

 

[Booklover]

"
Christ’s church is not a visible authority.
God’s Blessings,

Lutheran Student

Where did you get that preposterous idea?

 

[Exporter]

Lutheran Student,
You wrote,"Christ’s church is not a visible authority. Indeed, there is no authority outside of Christ. That is why I do not answer to Catholic tradition. Jesus said that “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.” He did not say that “If you stay with the oldest, most erranous, most perverted rendition of my gospel soley because it has become “a tradition” you are really my disciples.”

---

“The oldest, most erranous, most perverted rendition of my gospel”, Lutheran student, you are hitting below the belt with this statement. Why you chose to lash out with venom I don’t know. You say you love the Church yet you say it is PERVERTED.

You were so in a hurry you mispelled or uaed a nonexistant word -“ERRANOUS”. What word did you think you were using?
Apostolic Tradition

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

 

[Church_Militant]

Lutheran Student alleges:

Postings #56, #57 and #58 leave the Church fathers screaming, “Sola Scriptura!” Who from the Catholic church will answer them?

You might check your hearing my friend…all we hear is the hoarse croakings of some people who rejected the very fathers of the church that you claim supports your case and have been screaming at us for 487 years while the succesors of the apostles have spoken with quiet charity for over 2,000 years.

Why should we waste time posting you answers to Sola Scriptura when there is a fine refutation of it already avavilable on this very homepage. Start with this one and go through the others like it. catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[Booklover]

(Quick note to Lisa N: wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=14&cuItem_itemID=4527 . Hopefully this is what you are talking about. God Bless your research.)

Dear Booklover,
I* apologize if I it appears that I do not fully comprehend Catholic beliefs. I admit, when it comes to church history I could be much better informed than I am. *I cannot say how or from where many Catholic traditions started, or what the Catholic church has believed at any given point in time. But isn’t that the point? The Catholic church has been more than inconsistent with it’s doctrines and practices over it’s 2000 year history. Let me explain:

Yes, your ignorance about the teachings of our Church is plain to see! Where did you learn about the Catholic Church? It certainly wasn’t from any reputable Catholic site. I’m sure you’ve got all your distortions and misconceptions from Protestant sources who in their hatred have perverted the teachings of the Church.

Remember that you’re on a Catholic forum, so please be courteous!

 

[Contarini]

LutheranStudent:

As far as Luther’s removal of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, I had never heard of it before and after an admittedly brief search found nothing.

He didn’t remove them outright. He put them in an appendix (these books, like the OT “Apocrypha,” had been questioned in the early Church as well). Katholikos argues that this constituted removal from the canon, but I’ve never found his arguments convincing. He and I have been round and round on this before.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[LutheranStudent]

Exporter said,

“You were so in a hurry you mispelled or uaed a nonexistant word -“ERRANOUS”. What word did you think you were using?”

As it turns out, he is right. The word I meant to use was “erroneous”. I believe the word that he was trying to use is “used”. If nothing else this can serve to prove that humans err, and their word cannot be trusted wholly ~ Sola Scriptura.

Church Militant said,

“Why should we waste time posting you answers to Sola Scriptura when there is a fine refutation of it already avavilable on this very homepage. Start with this one and go through the others like it.”

If I am to follow the lead of Exporter, I would point out that one of the above sentences needs a question mark. I realize, however, that there is a meaning behind the grammatical errors, and I have tended to that. I read the initial page and found no response whatsoever to the above-listed writings of ‘the fathers.’ To me, it sounded like more badly done rationalization.

Booklover said, in response to my statement that Christ’s true church is not a visible authority,

“Where did you get that preposterous idea?”

Maybe you’ve noticed a theme in where I get my info: His name is Jesus Christ. I realize that he has been badly crowded by the Catholic love for tradition, popes and coucils, but here is a quote;

"Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Luke 17:20-21

Booklover also said,

“Yes, your ignorance about the teachings of our Church is plain to see! Where did you learn about the Catholic Church? It certainly wasn’t from any reputable Catholic site.”

It is true, I was rather ignorant about the Catholic church. That is why I am so glad that I wandered onto the forum - I have learned so much. I have been researching documents from every nook and cranny of Christianity in the past few days. Yes, that includes a significant amount of Catholic sites.

The irony is that in this research I found my faith even stronger than it was before. I have become ever-more confident in the things that God has led me to believe. On top of that, I have become much more well-equipped to witness to others. I thank you all for that.

You should also know that the Catholic Church has a funny reputation for writing it’s own history.

Exporter also cited these verses to try and disprove “Sola Scriptura,”

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Exporter, kudos to you for bringing forward the best argument so far! I was rather intriqued at these verses, so looked them up. However, I did not look them up in an English Bible. Or in the Vulgate. I looked them up in the Greek ~ the way Paul wrote them. As it turns out, the word, which I can best transcribe as “para’dosis” means either tradition or teaching. The New International Version, the most accredited Bible in the world, favors teaching.

I think that it is obvious the apostle Paul was telling Timothy to hold fast the truth, which was what had been taught to him. It becomes obvious through the rest of Scripture that the Catholic church has departed from these teachings, and refuses to return, for the sake ‘of tradition’.

I must apologize for my constant returning after saying that I am going to leave. This conversation is very important to me, since it pertains to what exactly is the truth.

God’s Blessings,
Lutheran Student

 

[DianJo]

“I’m not going to waste any more time with your posts! I’m thoroughly disgusted with your arrogance and contempt for our Church!”

I love the church with a greater love than you will ever know. I love it beyond tradition. I love it beyond pomp and earthly ‘authority’. I love it because the church is the body of Christ. I am grafted to Christ as a branch to the vine, His life supplies my life. Pity me if ever I should go against His teachings in favor of the teachings of men!

Christ’s church is not a visible authority. Indeed, there is no authority outside of Christ. That is why I do not answer to Catholic tradition. Jesus said that “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.” He did not say that “If you stay with the oldest, most erranous, most perverted rendition of my gospel soley because it has become “a tradition” you are really my disciples.”

This will probably be my last posting ~ there are many people joining who have not been here before and are (intentionally or otherwise) avoiding the real issues. I may visit again this coming weekend, but until I do keep this in mind:

Postings #56, #57 and #58 leave the Church fathers screaming, “Sola Scriptura!” Who from the Catholic church will answer them?

God’s Blessings,
Lutheran Student

I will not answer with some quotes from anyone in the past but I will answer this - It is the problem that I find with most Protestants that you cannot or will not accept the fact that the early church fathers and the Apostles and Jesus taught BOTH. They taught through their writings and with the Traditions of the Church - they were the Traditions of the Church.

---

***Yes, they taught people to study and use Scripture to model their lives BUT they also taught that Tradition was important, too. But, honestly, how many people other than the wealthy had access to the Scripture or could even read. They depended on the Church to teach them with Scripture AND with Traditions. ***

---

With you people it’s one or the other that’s where you make your mistake. Catholics teach in a much more rounded way and take ALL factors into consideration. Protestants are famous for throwing out the baby with the bath water!

 

[LutheranStudent]

Dear DianJo,
I am well aware that Protestants do not accept both Scripture and tradition as an authority. That is what we are talking about! When I read your posting I was tempted to nominate you for the “Captain Obvious” award. Please, please, please, if you (I mean, everyone) are going to post something here, ask a question or make an authorative statement or quote that I can evaluate! (Where is John Ennis, anyway?)

DianJo, the most “respondable” idea that I found in your posting was that the early Christians didn’t own thier own Bibles. While that may indeed be true that many of them didn’t, that doesn’t mean they had no access to one. The Early Church was absolutely on fire with zeal, and they met together very regularly to study to Scriptures. Remember Lydia from the book of Acts? What I’m saying is, true, each man did not own his own Bible. But you can rest assured that each congregation at least had one. I will also contend that in the very earliest days of the church, oral teachings were very trustworthy. That certainly did not last long though, before becoming infected with heresy, because by 4rth century St. John Crysostom of Antioch (a father that Catholics would like to quote) said;

“Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.”

~Lutheran Student

PS - You know, aside from my Lutheran heritage (or tradition), I have recently aquired a certain passion for quoting the church fathers. I am far more interested in them than I was earlier. Thank you for that.

 

[john_ennis]

Church Militant:

Lutheran Student alleges:

You might check your hearing my friend…all we hear is the hoarse croakings of some people who rejected the very fathers of the church that you claim supports your case and have been screaming at us for 487 years while the succesors of the apostles have spoken with quiet charity for over 2,000 years.

Why should we waste time posting you answers to Sola Scriptura when there is a fine refutation of it already avavilable on this very homepage. Start with this one and go through the others like it.

Now, now. Actually, Student, I was impressed and intrigued by your citations. As always, I’ve more to learn, and am delving to find the context, and other evidence of the mind of these particular Fathers. Bet it takes me a week.
But first off, notice how your quote from Chrysostom bangs up against mine. “…they did not hand down everything by letter…there is much that is unwritten.” Which is more direct re Scripture and Sacred Tradition? That’s what I’ll be looking for.
And with Cyprian; in the same letter you cite, he says, “For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases…if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition.”
Not that this answers all or even most of what you wrote, but citations (and this happens on all sides) that appear to be silver bullets give way to a different meaning in the larger text.
Lastly, for now, Cyril–he believes Sola Scriptura at the same time he holds to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church (*Catechetical Lectures *18:23), the Sacrifice of the Mass (23:6-8), purgatory and prayers for the dead (23:10)?
This is all vital, if occasionally tedious. Your point that, the closer you look at the early church, the more it resembles Luther’s creed, is fundamental. It was the first question I asked when my own faith was challenged by my in-laws: “How could the Church have got it wrong for 15 centuries, till Luther finally got it right?” Their answer: Oh, no, the early Church did believe as Luther did. The Catholic Church changed it.
At the time I was taken aback, and afraid of what I might find. But over the past 15 years, I’ve seen much to be encouraged, and no basis for their claim.
In any event,
peace.
John

 

[Des]

john ennis:

Not that this answers all or even most of what you wrote, but citations (and this happens on all sides) that appear to be silver bullets give way to a different meaning in the larger text.

Well, it seem he is just using quotes from web sites such as this one, and quotes the Church Fathers in the same perfect order to boot. If somebody is going to start using the Church Father’s quotes, please make sure you look at all their writings first to get an idea of the exact context of the their words.

 

[Booklover]

LutheranStudent:

Exporter said,

"
The irony is that in this research I found my faith even stronger than it was before. I have become ever-more confident in the things that God has led me to believe. On top of that, I have become much more well-equipped to witness to others. I thank you all for that.

You should also know that the Catholic Church has a funny reputation for writing it’s own history.

I. It becomes obvious through the rest of Scripture that the Catholic church has departed from these teachings, and refuses to return, for the sake ‘of tradition’.

I must apologize for my constant returning after saying that I am going to leave. This conversation is very important to me, since it pertains to what exactly is the truth.

God’s Blessings,
Lutheran Student]

You know, I’ve never understood the Protestants’ passion for bashing the Catholic Church. It appears to be a favorite pastime of our separated brethren. You’ve come to this site quoting scripture and even the Church Fathers in order to strenghen your claims for sola scriptura all the while making obnoxious remarks about our Church. Are you really interested in the TRUTH or only in what you perceive the truth to be? Can you not prove your claims without resorting to anti-catholic bigotry and hatred?

The Catholic Church does not have to bash any other religion in order to prove its claim to be the Church that Jesus Christ founded for all mankind. The proof is there for anyone really interested in the truth.

In order to prove their claims, Protestants resort to distorting, misinterpreting and sometimes even concocting lies about the teachings of the Church. Like when a Protestant asked me whether I had to pay the priest in order to get absolution when I went to confession! Where do they get such things? What are Protestants afraid of? That if they really study what the Catholic Church teaches they might find out that it is the “Real Thing” and that their “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” theories might collapse like a house of cards because there’s no foundation for them?

You also stated how strenghened you were in your faith you were after casting your poisoned darts and thinking you’d “scored” off us. Well, my faith in my Church has been strenghened much more since your vicious attacks too. Our Lord Jesus was persecuted all His life, even before His birth, so it’s not surprising that the Church He founded is reviled as well!

 

[Booklover]

LutheranStudent:

Exporter said,

"
The irony is that in this research I found my faith even stronger than it was before. I have become ever-more confident in the things that God has led me to believe. On top of that, I have become much more well-equipped to witness to others. I thank you all for that.

You should also know that the Catholic Church has a funny reputation for writing it’s own history.

I. It becomes obvious through the rest of Scripture that the Catholic church has departed from these teachings, and refuses to return, for the sake ‘of tradition’.

I must apologize for my constant returning after saying that I am going to leave. This conversation is very important to me, since it pertains to what exactly is the truth.

God’s Blessings,
Lutheran Student]

You know, I’ve never been able to understand the Protestants’ passion for bashing the Catholic Church. It appears to be a favorite pastime of our separated brethren. You’ve come to this site quoting scripture and even the Church Fathers in order to strenghen your claims for sola scriptura all the while making obnoxious remarks about our Church. Are you really interested in the TRUTH or only in what you perceive the truth to be? Can you not prove your claims without resorting to anti-catholic bigotry and hatred?

The Catholic Church does not have to bash any other religion in order to prove its claim to be the Church that Jesus Christ founded for all mankind. The proof is there for anyone really interested in the truth.

In order to prove their claims, Protestants resort to distorting, misinterpreting and even sometimes concocting lies about the teachings of the Church. What are Protestants afraid of? That if they really study what the Catholic Church teaches they might find out that it is the “Real Thing” and that their “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” theories might collapse like a house of cards because there’s no foundation for them?

You also stated how strenghened you were in your faith after casting your poisoned darts and thinking you’d “scored” off us. Well, my faith in my Church has been strenghened much more since your vicious attacks too. Our Lord Jesus was persecuted all His life, even before His birth, so it’s not surprising that the Church He founded is reviled as well!

 

[DianJo]

LutheranStudent:

Dear DianJo,
When I read your posting I was tempted to nominate you for the “Captain Obvious” award.

DianJo, the most “respondable” idea that I found in your posting was that the early Christians didn’t own thier own Bibles. While that may indeed be true that many of them didn’t, that doesn’t mean they had no access to one. The Early Church was absolutely on fire with zeal, and they met together very regularly to study to Scriptures. Remember Lydia from the book of Acts? What I’m saying is, true, each man did not own his own Bible. But you can rest assured that each congregation at least had one. I will also contend that in the very earliest days of the church, oral teachings were very trustworthy. That certainly did not last long though, before becoming infected with heresy, because by 4rth century St. John Crysostom of Antioch (a father that Catholics would like to quote) said;

“Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.”

**Maybe I like being named “Captain Obvious” (?) at least I can see things that are as plain as the nose on your face! **
**I am sorry that you find the rest of my posting as mindless, childish chatter and therefore “unrespondable” - How charitable of you - Oh great mind! **

---

**In the Early Church, there were only the letters of the apostles that were being circulated from church to church to be read to the people and interpreted by the church leaders as well as Old Testament scrolls and I imagine, yes, they did gather to study together - as a community all with one mind and one heart for the truth. The same truth you will find today in the Catholic Church. **

---

Heresy has existed as long as time itself but because heresy exists doesn’t mean we shut the doors of the Church because she might teach something that is infected with heresy. On the contrary, she will fight even harder to make sure that the truth is preserved. The bible IS A TRADITION of the Church. The bible cannot and never will contradict Tradition because the bible came from that Tradition. The books of the bible were measured against the Tradition of the Apostles and the Old Testament scripture. To suggest that we should no longer trust the Traditions of the church for this reason is ludicrous. There were too many that fought for and are still fighting to keep the truth pure. You cite St. John Crysostom of Antioch as a source for believing in the bible only - there a hundred more chruch fathers (listed previously in another post) that believed otherwise.

---

Protestants seem to believe in a vacuum - as I said earlier - it’s either one or the other and everything else gets thrown out. You cannot do that with history nor can you do that with the Church. You take all that was said and written into consideration and put it into context.

---

For someone as learned as yourself to claim that the Traditions of the Catholic Church have somehow been changed or watered down from their original beginnings because of heresy is fooling themselves into believing something that is simply not true to suit your own intrepretations of scripture. You see through the Lutheran set of beliefs therefore your view is skewed (not meaning to be insulting or anything).

---

One thing that seems to set some people off is when other denoms come here to tell us that we do not understand our own teachings and that our teachings are not those handed down to us by Jesus and the Apostles. And particularly when someone says that our teachings “constantly contradict scripture” then give no instances of such contradictions (as you have done repeatedly), it really does not bolster your credibility with anyone here.
Ask a question, have a lively conversation about our beliefs, we love it but do not presume to know more than we do about that which we have grown up with and studied. Debate all you want but, please don’t be so presumptuous.

 

[LutheranStudent]

Well, It looks as though I once again owe you all an apology for my use of sarcasm and disrespect. I admit that I have not been wary enough in showing you, the owners of this site, the proper respect. I know that by no means does this justify my frustrated comments, but I would like to offer this explaination for my abuses.

Please realize that while I have largely restricted myself to posting only on this thread, I also have been reading other threads with casual interest. Please realize that I take comments about Dr. Luther and his peers as personally as you might take comments about, say, the Pope. I had begun to percieve in the Catholic mind an idea of Protestants as “mutts” that have no place in Christ’s body. I certainly welcome comments that are based in fact. I have no resentment for those who have mentioned Dr. Luther in this particular thread, because they have been respectful and inquizative. I certainly thank the devout Christians that have born with me patiently, despite my admittedly crude comments.
Please realize that as I promise to try to be more wary in my word-choice, I would ask you to do the same. I certainly offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to those among you who have borne with me with patience. You are a credit to your church.

I also owe an apology to everyone for my error pointed out by Des. As he noted, I did get my quotes from the fathers from a website and I did not properly cite that site. It was not the one that he has linked to, though, it was from a Lutheran theological site. I will see what I can do to locate it once again and then link it in a following post for your evaluation.

John ~ Thank you for your patience, especially. I went to the library last night looking for books of the writings of the church fathers. I was disappointed with the two that I found initially, because the books were choppy and biased. (They employed the humanistic logic to faith.) However, I went back today to search more thoroughly and came up with six books. (As it turns out I had been in the wrong section the day before, the books I was looking for were in the shelf behind me!) I shall be reading them ASAP and hopefully posting quotes and explainations at the same time. We shall see what was running through the heads of the fathers.
Here are there names and publishers of the books I found:

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: Stuart G. Hall, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (This book is also a historical commentary to put the writings in context.)

Faith and Practice in the Early Church: Carl A. Volz, Augsburg Publishing House.

A History of Christianity - Readings in the History of the Early and Medieval Church: Ray C. Petry, Ed. Prentice Hall

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Mark J Edwards, Ed. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
(I took out volumes VII,VIII & IX. They cover sermons and commentaries of the fathers from [1 & 2 Corinthians,] [Galations, Ephesians, Philippians,] [Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon.])

God’s Blessings, John.
In Christian Love,
Lutheran Student

 

[DianJo]

Lutheran Student,

I just read your last post. When you first posted on this thread, I said to myself, “Ah, someone who is learned and is willing to discuss things rather that accuse or spout lies about what we believe.” I was glad to see you posting here because we can learn so much from each other - then came your sideways comments that I felt were sort of out of the blue. They didn’t seem to fit in with what you were posting.

We all here know too well how it feels when someone attacks the Pope and we should be mindful that others may feel the same when we make comments about Luther. Whatever our comments, we should all be charitable.

Welcome and keep posting - you have alot to offer.

Diana