M
- Status
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
This is the most irrational thing that Protestants hold to. No one can remain credible and claim Catholics do not have faith in Christ. So then, by the principal of sola fide the logic must lead to the conclusion that all Catholics are saved since they all have faith in Christ. But then when Catholics point this out its “we can’t have that!” since there has to be a resaon to be Protestant. So they will start changing the core tenants of their faith and and their belief in sola fide (which is self evidently a belief NOT in Jesus alone but in Protestant dogma alone - which is "By Protest Alone). You see, the irrational rebuttal would have it that "sola fide only works for non-Catholic salvation apparently. Yes, those tricky Catholics by doing all their extra prayers, masses and by listening to a priest teach the gospel instead of a self appointed secular minister who hangs his correspondence-school diploma on his office wall, have all invalidated their faith by exceeding the requirements.
Because Catholics don’t believe in ONLY the BIBLE as they should and by believing in Jesus and also their “apostolic teachings and tradition” that means their faith in Jesus is invalidated. The whole Protestant position is childishly & blatantly inconsistent.
James
P
paul_c
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
Protestant historians until modern times used to say there were two fundamental principles of the Reformation, an objective one and subjective one. The former was the unique authority of Scripture, independent of tradition; the latter justification by faith alone without good works. While still considered important, these principles are now subordinated to a deeper issue from which they are both derived. Underlying them was the Protestant belief in the inspiration of the individual and the corresponding right of private judgment in matters of faith. Consequently, the real point of difference between Protestants and Catholics was not the canon or authority of Scriptures, but who has the right of interpretation. Catholics believed the infallible Church, Protestants said the inspired or enlightened individual.This is the most irrational thing that Protestants hold to. No one can remain credible and claim Catholics do not have faith in Christ. So then, by the principal of sola fide the logic must lead to the conclusion that all Catholics are saved since they all have faith in Christ. But then when Catholics point this out its “we can’t have that!” since there has to be a resaon to be Protestant. So they will start changing the core tenants of their faith and and their belief in sola fide (which is self evidently a belief NOT in Jesus alone but in Protestant dogma alone - which is "By Protest Alone). You see, the irrational rebuttal would have it that "sola fide only works for non-Catholic salvation apparently. Yes, those tricky Catholics by doing all their extra prayers, masses and by listening to a priest teach the gospel instead of a self appointed secular minister who hangs his correspondence-school diploma on his office wall, have all invalidated their faith by exceeding the requirements.
The whole Protestant position is childishly & blatantly inconsistent.
James
cont.
T
Tomster
Guest
The dichotomy has not substantially changed. Against the Church’s claim that only she has the right to explain the inspired text, contemporary Protestants hold the opposite. They may not agree on the conditions required for valid interpretation, but on one point they all concur - it is not an ecclesiastical body and least of all the Catholic Church.
Though widely different and apparently contradictory, two streams of thought came out of the original Lutheran concept of private interpretation. Divine grace through Jesus Christ speaks directly to the heart of the believer. Consistent with this principle, Luther threw out the so-called Apocryphal books, declared that in many places the Scriptures had erred and even conceded that another New Testament might be written to improve on the first one. His fundamentalist followers blandly teach that "Christians are individually taught by the Spirit of God, so that they are slaves to no one as they study the Scriptures. Each individual believer is able by the grace of God to read the Scriptures for himself, receiving the benefit of divine illumination. Extreme forms of this illuminism are found among the minor sects of Pentecostals, the Holiness movement and, on a more respected plane, among the Quakers. A variant form of Bible individualism dispenses not only with special guidance of the Holy Spirit but with any kind of scientific inquiry into the proper meaning of the text. Since “the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and set forth in Scripture passages so clear that the learned and unlearned alike can understand them, they do not stand in need of ‘exegesis’ for explanation. If Scriptures did not have this quality, it would not be for all Christians ‘a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path,’ nor would all Christians be able to establish the truth of their faith by Scripture and in the light of Scripture to mark and avoid false teachers.” As an expression of biblical Protestantism, this statement could scarecly be improved. Sectarians who wished to hold on to some form of dogma could not follow Luther to the conclusion of his premises; that way lay chaos and the end of organized Christianity. Neither would they accept the Catholic magisterium. They took the middle course of setting up the Bible as the only and ultimate norm of Christian belief. Thus authority was met with authority, a book against an institution or, as a the fundamentalists prefer, the word of God instead of the word of man.
However, the more common idea of private interpretation took Luther at his word. It seemed a trifle to insist on a special illumination for interpreting Scripture. Enough to know that everyone has a spark of the divine within him to sift the wheat from the chaff in the Bible and derive what he can from the wisdom of the ancients. His tools in the process are historical and literary criticisms. With these he recovers the true Jesus of history. Following the lead of men like Harnack, for whom the Gospels are “not altogether useless as sources of history,” and Bultmann, who marvelled, “what a primitive mythology, that a divine being should be incarnate,” liberal Protestants still use the vocabulary of dogmatic Christians, but they no longer believe in the concepts. No major denomination has escaped the solvent of rationalism, not excluding traditionally conservative bodies.
Though widely different and apparently contradictory, two streams of thought came out of the original Lutheran concept of private interpretation. Divine grace through Jesus Christ speaks directly to the heart of the believer. Consistent with this principle, Luther threw out the so-called Apocryphal books, declared that in many places the Scriptures had erred and even conceded that another New Testament might be written to improve on the first one. His fundamentalist followers blandly teach that "Christians are individually taught by the Spirit of God, so that they are slaves to no one as they study the Scriptures. Each individual believer is able by the grace of God to read the Scriptures for himself, receiving the benefit of divine illumination. Extreme forms of this illuminism are found among the minor sects of Pentecostals, the Holiness movement and, on a more respected plane, among the Quakers. A variant form of Bible individualism dispenses not only with special guidance of the Holy Spirit but with any kind of scientific inquiry into the proper meaning of the text. Since “the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and set forth in Scripture passages so clear that the learned and unlearned alike can understand them, they do not stand in need of ‘exegesis’ for explanation. If Scriptures did not have this quality, it would not be for all Christians ‘a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path,’ nor would all Christians be able to establish the truth of their faith by Scripture and in the light of Scripture to mark and avoid false teachers.” As an expression of biblical Protestantism, this statement could scarecly be improved. Sectarians who wished to hold on to some form of dogma could not follow Luther to the conclusion of his premises; that way lay chaos and the end of organized Christianity. Neither would they accept the Catholic magisterium. They took the middle course of setting up the Bible as the only and ultimate norm of Christian belief. Thus authority was met with authority, a book against an institution or, as a the fundamentalists prefer, the word of God instead of the word of man.
However, the more common idea of private interpretation took Luther at his word. It seemed a trifle to insist on a special illumination for interpreting Scripture. Enough to know that everyone has a spark of the divine within him to sift the wheat from the chaff in the Bible and derive what he can from the wisdom of the ancients. His tools in the process are historical and literary criticisms. With these he recovers the true Jesus of history. Following the lead of men like Harnack, for whom the Gospels are “not altogether useless as sources of history,” and Bultmann, who marvelled, “what a primitive mythology, that a divine being should be incarnate,” liberal Protestants still use the vocabulary of dogmatic Christians, but they no longer believe in the concepts. No major denomination has escaped the solvent of rationalism, not excluding traditionally conservative bodies.
W
whatischarity
Guest
I see you disagree.
W
whatischarity
Guest
You must like to write. It would be beneficial to me if you narrowed your responses to the question. i see though that other posters have not complained of your style so perhaps the problem is at my end so I’ll refrain from responding to your posts.
W
whatischarity
Guest
I know in scripture St Paul likens the relationship or unity between a man and women in marriage to the relationship between Christ and the Church; but although this is true, there are still unfortunate weaknesses in the analogy. Why then was the Church in terrible need of reforming in the 16th century? It was unfortunate the divisions in the Church had to occur before the Church reformed itself at Trent. My sole point is that Jesus did not need reforming(!), the Church did. If this is difficult for the Roman Catholic to understand with their biases, imagine how it is for someone who has left the Church. To deny otherwise would be dishonest. Jesus does not have warts, the Church does. It is as unhealthy for the Catholic to dismiss the warts as it is for the non-Catholic Christian to not see the goal for one united Christendom.
P
paul_c
Guest
You are confusing church doctrine (what it teaches) and Chruch practice (how it teaches). Church doctrine has never changed because the truth about salvation never changes and in that sense, the Church has always been aligned to Christ. It is infallible in what it teaches.
How the church teaches (Chruch practice) is not infallible and this is where there are “warts,” with sinful men exposing the church to scandal and bringing about the need for reform.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
What is unhealthy is dismissing history. Well before Trent and just 7 months before Luther even first nailed his infamous 95 thesis on the Church door in Wittenberg the Catholic Church had already held the 5th Lateran Council. The Church was already addressing abuses and reforms long before Luther tried to opportunistically put himself into the fray. But for various political problems (and wars and conflicts between European nobility) implementations were delayed. Luther was in a Catholic University as a professor and would have been very well informed about such major Church events. He just didn’t trust the church to reform fast enough for his own liking and had his own agenda which he wanted to force the Church to conform to. Whatever Luther’s true motive he was out of order to not first run his concerns through the bishop and in trying to force the Church to address his issues as more important than others that were in work.
James
B
brb3
Guest
Catholics believe in miracles & great mysteries … our belief, borne of 1st century Faith.
Protestants who are so strong on preaching ‘faith alone’ … have so little, when it comes to the teaching of Christ, John, and Paul on the miracle of the Eucharist.
What an inexcusable disconnect.
T
Tomster
Guest
Amen bro!
W
whatischarity
Guest
Yes, you have made my point that Rinnie was incorrect when she stated:
R
rinnie
Guest
How can I be incorrect when I said that anyone who denys that Jesus Christ is the CC can be a good example for the church? Are you saying that to deny that Jesus Christ is the CC is being a good witness for Christ?
The teaching of the Church and the Teaching of Jesus Christ is that Jesus is the CC.
Jesus and his Church are united to eachother as one. The church is his eternal bride. They are joined together as one.
Are you saying that you can separate Jesus from the Catholic Church?
R
rinnie
Guest
Eph. 1:22 and he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all thing to the CHURCH, which is HIS BODY THE FULNESS OF THE ONE WHO FILLS ALL THINGS IN EVERY WAY.
Acts 9:4 Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. He said WHO are you sir? the reply came I am JESUS the ONE YOU ARE PERSECUTING.
Are you going to deny that Saul was persecuting the CC. Are you going to deny that Jesus said he was the CC who Saul was persecuting.
How can anyone be a good example for the teachings of CHrist and deny this scripture?
Acts 9:4 Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. He said WHO are you sir? the reply came I am JESUS the ONE YOU ARE PERSECUTING.
Are you going to deny that Saul was persecuting the CC. Are you going to deny that Jesus said he was the CC who Saul was persecuting.
How can anyone be a good example for the teachings of CHrist and deny this scripture?
W
whatischarity
Guest
I am sure that I cannot explain it to you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You have created a false dichotomy, Priscilla. There is no need to make it either Jesus OR the CC.
By declaring this, you are serving a Christ separated from His Body, the Church. In other words, you serve a decapitated Christ.
Catholics understand that Jesus and His Body, the Church, are ONE. And to follow one, is to follow the other.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Catholics do not believe that the Catechism has equal authority to Scripture. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition hold positions of primacy.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Amen to that.
May God bless you and give you peace.
Your sister in Christ,
Janet
J
Janet1983
Guest
You are right in that we do not have to choose between the two. We can however follow Jesus Christ and love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength outside of the CC as well. The notion that loving Him outside of the CC is a construct of the dark one’s smoke and mirrors is wrong in my assumption.
May God bless you.
In Him,
Janet
- Status