Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[epan]

Lets place this in reality. Who came to the same conclusion? Has there ever been an authoritative Protestant organization who studied the over 400 texts that were considered by the various councils for inclusion in the canon and came to the same conclusion that only 27 of those texts should be included? No. You accept what the Church determined because the Church determined it and for no other reason.

A Protestant might simply reply that of the reader of scripture, inspiration by the Holy Spirit trumps any number of “authoritative” councils. As a matter of historic record, we also know that those who claim authority are proved to be wrong as often as they are proved to be correct, in their findings.

But your statement raises an important point, regardless of “correctness” of interpretation. There is an inherent bias toward political corruption when large and powerful organizations are created. This is simply human nature. This is probably the most common complaint against the Catholic Church by other Christian denominations. To a Catholic, the wealth of the Vatican and the political intrigue over the centuries may be a point of interest, or even of pride. To many Protestants, the history of political influence, accumulation of wealth, persecution and intrigue… represent religion being put to exactly the opposite of its highest principles.

And, sadly, even with modern sensibilities, which bring a more humanist morality to bear, the Catholic Church has still stumbled on its own gilded robes, trying to cope with very important moral issues within its own bureaucracy.

I hope this helps the original poster to understand why many Protestants do not respect the self proclaimed authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If we extracted our faith from the Bible I would tend to agree with you. But we don’t. We possessed this truth long before the texts were chosen. That is the basis on which the texts were chosen; did they authentically reflect the truth already received by the Church from the Apostles. So this is not some circular argument for the simple reason that our faith does not originate from the Bible.

Okay, but what infallible source, outside of Scripture, tells you that the Church is infallible?

 

[clem456]

Okay, but what infallible source, outside of Scripture, tells you that the Church is infallible?

Christ?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Christ?

But again, it was already said that we cannot know anything of what Jesus said (i.e., Scripture) unless an infallible church tells us so. This assumes that the church is already infallible before taking Christ into account.

 

[clintonm]

I hope this helps the original poster to understand why many Protestants do not respect the self proclaimed authority of the Catholic Church.

As many are willing to point out: it is not a self proclaimed authority of the Church, it is a Christ proclaimed authority of the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

A Protestant might simply reply that of the reader of scripture, inspiration by the Holy Spirit trumps any number of “authoritative” councils.

LOL. Yes, a Protestant might give this reply. And a Catholic might respond that the fact that Protestantism now resembles a piece a shattered glass as far as various conflicting beliefs are concerned is prima facie evidence that it is not the Holy Spirit who is guiding them.

As a matter of historic record, we also know that those who claim authority are proved to be wrong as often as they are proved to be correct, in their findings.

Please give an example. When has the Catholic Church been proven to be wrong in its doctrines and dogmas; faith and morals.

But your statement raises an important point, regardless of “correctness” of interpretation. There is an inherent bias toward political corruption when large and powerful organizations are created. This is simply human nature.

If this was a human institution I might agree with you, but it is not. It is a divine institution, founded by God himself. The entire reason that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to “teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” is because human beings are weak and fallible by nature. We depend entirely on the guidance of Holy Spirit and the presence of Christ in our Church.

This is probably the most common complaint against the Catholic Church by other Christian denominations. To a Catholic, the wealth of the Vatican and the political intrigue over the centuries may be a point of interest, or even of pride. To many Protestants, the history of political influence, accumulation of wealth, persecution and intrigue… represent religion being put to exactly the opposite of its highest principles.

Yes, this is a common complaint, but a bogus one. You are judging the validity of the Church by the actions of those who do not live according to its principles. We have had plenty of these, even some of our popes and bishops. So if we want to look at human failures we can do that. However, we must also recognize that not one doctrine or dogma of the Church has been changed by those you wish to showcase. We are a divine institution made up of sinners, and protected by the Holy Spirit in preserving the truth handed down to us by the Apostles, in spite of our human weakness and failures.

 

[clintonm]

But again, it was already said that we cannot know anything of what Jesus said (i.e., Scripture) unless an infallible church tells us so. This assumes that the church is already infallible before taking Christ into account.

Which came first? Jesus or the Bible? Which came first? The words Jesus spoke or the Bible?

 

[SteveVH]

Okay, but what infallible source, outside of Scripture, tells you that the Church is infallible?

I just told you. Jesus. He told us this before the NT was even written and the Church chose texts that reflected what it had been told “outside of Scripture”. It is called “Sacred Tradition”.

 

[clem456]

The word infallible is a red herring here. The inspired canon of Scripture does not require the specific invocation of infallibility to be inspired. We are chasing our tails.

 

[SteveVH]

The word infallible is a red herring here. The inspired canon of Scripture does not require the specific invocation of infallibility to be inspired. We are chasing our tails.

Huh? Choosing the canon of Scripture does require infallibility if we are to be certain that what we are reading is the inspired word of God and that nothing that is not inspired was included and that nothing that should have been included was excluded.

Can you be certain that the letter of Clement to the Corinthians should not have been included? Can you be sure that Hebrews should have been included? How do you know unless you have confidence that the Church was guided infallibly in making those choices?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Just FYI, the canon of scripture, or anything else Catholic for that matter, does not require a specifically infallible declaration to require the assent of the faithful.
The concept of infallibility is widely misunderstood and is a red herring here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11454258&postcount=61
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11185812&postcount=17

Again, read the CCC as well (Catechism of the Catholic Church, it’s current teaching document) which gives an explanation of infallibility.

Thanks but no thanks, done that and got the t-shirt.

That’s not what I am arguing.

As a Catholic, I don’t need an infallible declaration to be obedient.

But some Catholics love to use infallibility out of context and out of a declaration by the Church. I call it: “Rubber stamping Vatican I definition of infallibility”. Not one of us has the authority to declare something is infallible, we can have all the opinions we want.

Only the Church can.

And that is my fallible opinion.

Fallibly yours,

 

[FathersKnowBest]

What infallible source tells you that the church is infallible?

Jesus. Through all the most reliable and trusted sources: scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

In order to be wrong about this fact, I’d also have to be wrong about Jesus.

That is my starting point.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If two groups come to the same conclusion then it obviously follows that one must have submitted to the authority of the other.

If one of the two groups has no reason outside of the authority of the other, then this would be true.

 

[clem456]

Huh? Choosing the canon of Scripture does require infallibility if we are to be certain that what we are reading is the inspired word of God and that nothing that is not inspired was included and that nothing that should have been included was excluded.

Can you be certain that the letter of Clement to the Corinthians should not have been included? Can you be sure that Hebrews should have been included? How do you know unless you have confidence that the Church was guided infallibly in making those choices?

:banghead:
Choosing the canon of Scripture requires…the Church. That’s it. The Church does not need to point to any specific infallible declaration to establish what Scripture is and is not. What the Church does is point to Jesus. Please read the links I posted in post 400.
Perhaps we are confusing Inspiration or Sacred Tradition with infallibility?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:banghead:
Choosing the canon of Scripture requires…the Church. That’s it. The Church does not need to point to any specific infallible declaration to establish what Scripture is and is not. What the Church does is point to Jesus. Please read the links I posted in post 400.
Perhaps we are confusing Inspiration or Sacred Tradition with infallibility?

 

[SteveVH]

:banghead:
Choosing the canon of Scripture requires…the Church. That’s it. The Church does not need to point to any specific infallible declaration to establish what Scripture is and is not. What the Church does is point to Jesus. Please read the links I posted in post 400.
Perhaps we are confusing Inspiration or Sacred Tradition with infallibility?

No, I just misunderstood you. We agree. Apologies.

Steve

 

[JonNC]

Jesus.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (MT 16:19)

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26)

The one main point that many seem to forget is that this is Christ’s Church. He is the Head. That is why the Church is infallible. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, protects HIS Church from error.

Which part of the Church, Steve?

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Which part of the Church, Steve?

Jon

Is Christ divided?
[1Cor 1:13]

 

[clem456]

No, I just misunderstood you. We agree. Apologies.

Steve

My apologies as well. After reading some more, I should have been responding to a different poster.
You were not the one requesting an infallible declaration on Scripture. You were asserting the Church’s inspired inerrancy, and it seems you are also using the word infallible correctly as it generally regards the Church.
My apologies for misunderstanding or conflating your post with the others.

Bottom line is the Church does not have to specifically declare something infallible for it to be that. The source of infallibility is the person of Christ working through his body the Church, not a document on paper.

 

[SteveVH]

My apologies as well. After reading some more, I should have been responding to a different poster.
You were not the one requesting an infallible declaration on Scripture. You were asserting the Church’s inspired inerrancy, and it seems you are also using the word infallible correctly as it generally regards the Church.
My apologies for misunderstanding or conflating your post with the others.

Bottom line is the Church does not have to specifically declare something infallible for it to be that. The source of infallibility is the person of Christ working through his body the Church, not a document on paper.

Absolutely!