Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[guanophore]

I understand it. I don't agree with their view.

Nor would I expect you to do so.

Had you considered that there might be benefits to being able to represent a point of view with which you do not agree?

There is no ONE among THEM who speaks for all of them. There is no Orthodox Church. There are many Churches all claiming autonomy. Does their “ecumenical patriarch” have any authority over all of them? No. No one does. The EP has a seat of honor but that’s it.

And this was the same model that was most common in the early church.

Some communities did not have communication with each other for years, even decades, and in some places communities were cut off by political and economic issues for centuries. The Maronites are a good example of this.

Are you lecturing me about innovations in the West , as if the East has none?

Sorry, didn’t mean to come across “lecturing”. Just posting info for the lurkers. I was referring to the Eastern objection to our development of doctrine, and the proclamation of dogmas that they find beyond the deposit of faith.

What kid of innovations do you see in the East?

you ARE trying to convince me. Which means you think their position is correct.

It is not my position. I am a Roman Catholic because I value the Petrine gifts and ministry. I think if I were separated from it as are the EO, I would be deprived of an essential element of the Apostolic faith.

My information came with Church links. Therefore, I gave the context to the circumstances with links I referred to. The folks I'm talking about knew their issues and still chose unity.

Yes. Some felt coerced but under the circumstances they had no choice. They preferred to be ruled by the Pope than wiped out by Muslims.
steve b;12417600:

[17]

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them . [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly ; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil . [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet"

The East and West did not separate in the same way as the Protestants. There was not a dispute over doctrine, and neither side made up new doctrines. The wounds were jurisdictional, in some ways, but also a gradual estrangement that was more rooted in culture, language, and ways of theologizing. In the East, there was not the influence of scholasticism, and they think about doctrine very differently.

The prefigurment of this division over authority already played out in the upper room. [Lk 22:23-32]

• The apostles got in an argument over who is greatest among THEM. Sound familiar?
• Jesus validated one of THEM would be greatest among THEM
• Who was it? The only apostle Jesus names and says He will pray for, and the one who is to strengthen his brothers. Simon Peter.
• And who is it that got them in an argument? Satan

For further explanation on [Lk 22:23-32] #

153

But Peter, unlike many of his successors who were possessed of incredible hubris, was a humble man, and lived out his identity as the servant of the servants. The attitudes that fomemted the division of East and West might not have occurred if the Patriarchs had such an attitude of humility. We are blessed in the last century with Popes who have the Spirit of Peter in this regard.

On both sides, the conflation of temporal (secular) power and estate contributed to this argument over who is the “greatest”.

One has to wonder how things might be different if the Church was separated from the State as it was in the first 300 years, and as it is in America now.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can you give an example of 2 Catholics interpreting the magisterium differently?

Please cite the document that is being interpreted, as well as the differing interpretations of this.

Molinism and Thomism?

Both are accepted and we are allowed to hold either one. Some people in the Magisterium hold to one, the other or to none.

Father William Most has an article on EWTN

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) [page 43]:

b) Thomism, scientifically established by the Donlinican theologian Dominicus
Banez (t 1604), teaches that God knows the future free actions of creatures in
His eternal volitional decrees: the absolute future in absolute, the conditioned
future in conditioned or hypothetical decrees. God has from all eternity in these
decrees laid down the totality ot the world-order also in regard to free creatures.
The realisation of the eternal decrees of God in time occurs through the fact
that God, through a physical intervention, the" praemotio physicl " infallibly
moves creatures to the actions intended by I-lim, in a manner, however, suitable
to the nature ofcreatures, so that unfree creatures act from necessity, free creatnres
with freedon1. In His eternal decrees, God foresees with infallible certainty
the free actions of creatures predetennined by Him.

c) Molinism, deriving from the Jesuit theologian Louis Molina (t 1600) ('xplains
the infallible Divine prescience of future free actions by recours~ to cc scientb
media," which precedes the Divine decrees of will conceptually, not in time,
and which is independent of thenl. Through scientia SilUplicis intelligentiae God
knows from all eternity how every creature endowed with reason will act in all
possible circumstances (stage I). Through scientia media He knows how it would
act in all possible conditions, in the case of new conditions being realised (stage 2).
In the light of scicntia media I-Ic then resolves wit.h the fullest freedoIll to realise
certain determined conditions. No," He knows through scientia visionis with
infallible certainty, how the person will, in fact, act in these conditions (stage 3).

Critique
Thomism very effectively stresses the all-causality and over-lordship of God
over everything created, but does less justice to the fact of human freedom.
It is difficult in fact to reconcile" praemotio physica" with human freedom.
Molinism, on the other hand, defends hunlan freedom, but weakens the
all-causality and the absolute independence of God. The mode of the scicntia
media, which is the basis of the whole system, remains unexplained.

Further, in § Theological Speculation on the Relation between Grace and Freedom (page 248).

5 schools of thought are mentioned:

• 1. Thomism (Dominicus Banez (t 1604), and it is accepted by most of the Dominican theologians)
• 1. Augustinianism ( developed in the 17th and 18th centuries by members of the Augustinian Order of Hennits, notably by Cardinal Heinrich Noris (t 1704) and Laurentius Berti (t 1766))
• 1. Molinism (Louis Molina (t 1600), and which is principally supported by the theologians ofthe Society of jesus)
• 1. Congruism (Francis Suarez (t 1617), by St. Robert Bellarmille (t 1621), by the Jesuit General Claudius Aquaviva (1613) )
• 1. Syncretism ( Sorbonne Nicholas Ysambert (t 1642 ); Isaac Habert (t 1668); Honore Toumely (t 1729), and by St. Alphonsis of Ligouri (t 1787))

This has to do with the Theological Speculation on Relation between Grace and Freedom.

 

[guanophore]

-]/-]

Scripture.

It is a nice idea, HH, but one without merit. Scripture cannot “decide”. Authority and decision making require qualities that Scripture does not have. Discernment requires the ability to reason and to choose, the ability to be responsible for ones decisions and their consequences. These are qualities of persons, not writings, however Holy.

So what happens is that the person doing the reading does the deciding. One who reads sincerely believes one is led by the Holy Spirit, and believes the conclusions he draws were from God, but people interpret according to their experiences and education (or lack of it) so there are many different well meaning interpretations.

It is also a fallacy that the HS will lead one Christian into an opposite direction to where He has already lead. This means that people on opposite sides are not entirely guided by the HS.

 

[SteveVH]

Molinism and Thomism?

Both are accepted and we are allowed to hold either one. Some people in the Magisterium hold to one, the other or to none.

Father William Most has an article on EWTN

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) [page 43]:

b) Thomism, scientifically established by the Donlinican theologian Dominicus
Banez (t 1604), teaches that God knows the future free actions of creatures in
His eternal volitional decrees: the absolute future in absolute, the conditioned
future in conditioned or hypothetical decrees. God has from all eternity in these
decrees laid down the totality ot the world-order also in regard to free creatures.
The realisation of the eternal decrees of God in time occurs through the fact
that God, through a physical intervention, the" praemotio physicl " infallibly
moves creatures to the actions intended by I-lim, in a manner, however, suitable
to the nature ofcreatures, so that unfree creatures act from necessity, free creatnres
with freedon1. In His eternal decrees, God foresees with infallible certainty
the free actions of creatures predetennined by Him.

c) Molinism, deriving from the Jesuit theologian Louis Molina (t 1600) ('xplains
the infallible Divine prescience of future free actions by recours~ to cc scientb
media," which precedes the Divine decrees of will conceptually, not in time,
and which is independent of thenl. Through scientia SilUplicis intelligentiae God
knows from all eternity how every creature endowed with reason will act in all
possible circumstances (stage I). Through scientia media He knows how it would
act in all possible conditions, in the case of new conditions being realised (stage 2).
In the light of scicntia media I-Ic then resolves wit.h the fullest freedoIll to realise
certain determined conditions. No," He knows through scientia visionis with
infallible certainty, how the person will, in fact, act in these conditions (stage 3).

Critique
Thomism very effectively stresses the all-causality and over-lordship of God
over everything created, but does less justice to the fact of human freedom.
It is difficult in fact to reconcile" praemotio physica" with human freedom.
Molinism, on the other hand, defends hunlan freedom, but weakens the
all-causality and the absolute independence of God. The mode of the scicntia
media, which is the basis of the whole system, remains unexplained.

Further, in § Theological Speculation on the Relation between Grace and Freedom (page 248).

5 schools of thought are mentioned:

• 1. Thomism (Dominicus Banez (t 1604), and it is accepted by most of the Dominican theologians)
• 1. Augustinianism ( developed in the 17th and 18th centuries by members of the Augustinian Order of Hennits, notably by Cardinal Heinrich Noris (t 1704) and Laurentius Berti (t 1766))
• 1. Molinism (Louis Molina (t 1600), and which is principally supported by the theologians ofthe Society of jesus)
• 1. Congruism (Francis Suarez (t 1617), by St. Robert Bellarmille (t 1621), by the Jesuit General Claudius Aquaviva (1613) )
• 1. Syncretism ( Sorbonne Nicholas Ysambert (t 1642 ); Isaac Habert (t 1668); Honore Toumely (t 1729), and by St. Alphonsis of Ligouri (t 1787))

This has to do with the Theological Speculation on Relation between Grace and Freedom.

The Church has never looked down on theological speculation. But this is different than disagreeing with the magisterium on doctrinal issues. No one is required to believe a theological speculation.

 

[guanophore]

Not anymore than the Catholic who interprets the magisterium.

on the contrary, much more so

Who is the final authority, the magisterium or the person’s interpretation of the magisterium?

You make a good point that interpretation must occur for everyone, at every level. Human beings, by nature, interpret everything that passes through our senses. When we read, we must interpret the text, when we hear, we must interpret the expression, etc.

The differences of you being your own authority and the way the Magesterium functions are many. For one, Jesus promised to lead His Church into “all Truth”. This is not a statement that was made to individuals, but to the college of Apostles, those whom He appointed with teaching authority. They passed this authority to their successors, the bishops.

Another is that the Magesterium rests upon the unbroken guidance of the HS for the last 2000 years. To the extent that you are separated from the CC, you are separated from that unbroken guidance.

It is this separation, and the heresy of SS that produce more divisions and fragmentations in the Body of Christ. One must judge by the fruit, and we can see that the fruit of SS is division and separation, rather than unity.

The Reformers were disgusted with the structure of authority appointed by Christ. They wanted to replace this authority with something more pure and reliable. Scripture was all there was, and the best there was, ,so the doctrine of SS was invented. They meant well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Church has never looked down on theological speculation. But this is different than disagreeing with the magisterium on doctrinal issues. No one is required to believe a theological speculation.

Thus my question mark on the very first sentence.

Also, most people don’t realize on how much wiggle room we have. The Church is not as stiff-necked and narrow-minded as some people make it appear. Most of Scriptures are still open to interpretation as long as the boundaries are not crossed.

Also, those people that are mentioned next to each school of thought are part of the Magisterium and they have opposing views. Again, there is no definitive teaching on that particular subject, so it would be almost impossible to “oppose” “official” “teaching” - there’s that wiggle room I was talking about…

 

[joe371]

Scripture.

In the Protestant sphere, you say that scripture definitively determines what is false and what is not? How does scripture alone (a holy book written by God, indirectly) definitively determine what is false and what is not?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

In the Protestant sphere, you say that scripture definitively determines what is false and what is not? How does scripture alone (a holy book written by God, indirectly) definitively determine what is false and what is not?

The question doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t know any protestant who uses scripture to the exclusion of all other sources, and that certainly isn’t the Lutheran position.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

on the contrary, much more so

You make a good point that interpretation must occur for everyone, at every level. Human beings, by nature, interpret everything that passes through our senses. When we read, we must interpret the text, when we hear, we must interpret the expression, etc.

The differences of you being your own authority and the way the Magesterium functions are many. For one, Jesus promised to lead His Church into “all Truth”. This is not a statement that was made to individuals, but to the college of Apostles, those whom He appointed with teaching authority. They passed this authority to their successors, the bishops.

Another is that the Magesterium rests upon the unbroken guidance of the HS for the last 2000 years. To the extent that you are separated from the CC, you are separated from that unbroken guidance.

It is this separation, and the heresy of SS that produce more divisions and fragmentations in the Body of Christ. One must judge by the fruit, and we can see that the fruit of SS is division and separation, rather than unity.

The Reformers were disgusted with the structure of authority appointed by Christ. They wanted to replace this authority with something more pure and reliable. Scripture was all there was, and the best there was, ,so the doctrine of SS was invented. They meant well.

The differences of you being your own authority and the way the Magesterium functions are many. For one, Jesus promised to lead His Church into “all Truth”. This is not a statement that was made to individuals, but to the college of Apostles, those whom He appointed with teaching authority. They passed this authority to their successors, the bishops.

To which bishops did Jesus give said authority, the RC, EO, OO?

Another is that the Magesterium rests upon the unbroken guidance of the HS for the last 2000 years. To the extent that you are separated from the CC, you are separated from that unbroken guidance.

Which magisterium has the unbroken guidance of the HS, the RC? EO?

 

[SteveVH]

To which bishops did Jesus give said authority, the RC, EO, OO?

There is no “RC” Church. Except for the keys that were given specifically to Peter, all of these have apostolic succession and therefore authority.

Which magisterium has the unbroken guidance of the HS, the RC? EO?

I can’t speak as to whether or not the EO even have what could be called a “magisterium”. I just don’t know. But they do have teaching authority for the same reason given above. They have apostolic succession and Jesus sent them to teach all nations.

 

[guanophore]

To which bishops did Jesus give said authority, the RC, EO, OO?

All validly ordained bishops carry the gift and responsibility to guard the once for all divine deposit of faith.

Which magisterium has the unbroken guidance of the HS, the RC? EO?

These other bodies do not have a magesterium, but are autocephalic churches.

The Magesterium, teaching authority appointed by Christ, is identified as the bishops in unity with the successor of Peter. Peter is the visible sign of unity.

“.…the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (3:3:2). Irenaeus Against Heresies

Despite the separation from the Successor of Peter, though, the EO and OO have retained the vast majority of the Apostolic faith, further invalidating the Protestant innovations of the Reformation. All the Churches planted by Apostles agree that Sola Scriptura did not come from the Apostolic deposit of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. In fact we saw it blatantly a few days ago.

“Hooray, the RC is more accepting in of gays”

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/stunning-change

“Oh my God the RCC is more accepting of gays”

pewsitter.com/view_news_id_185171.php

LOL!

You have shown an example of a constant teaching of the Church: the Church is more accepting of gays.

Both of your examples **have the same interpretation **of what the Church said. “The Church is more accepting of gays.”

That their reaction to differs is irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

Molinism and Thomism?

Which one is supported by the magisterium? (Answer: neither).

And which 2 Catholics have different opinions about what the magisterium has proclaimed?

I don’t think you’ve followed the conversation correctly.

I need examples of a Church teaching that has been interpreted in 2 different ways by Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

LOL!

You have shown an example of a constant teaching of the Church: the Church is more accepting of gays.

Both of your examples **have the same interpretation **of what the Church said. “The Church is more accepting of gays.”

That their reaction to differs is irrelevant.

Try not to be too hard on HH. I suspect there might be a cognitive inability to grasp the “both/and” that is required to understand the Catholic faith. I have seen a persistent pattern of concrete (black and white) thinking.

I saw a news article the other day saying something like “Catholic Church changes position on gays”. I thought reporters were supposed to be informed on their subject matter? How can any respectable journalist write such a thing?

 

[PRmerger]

Try not to be too hard on HH. I suspect there might be a cognitive inability to grasp the “both/and” that is required to understand the Catholic faith. I have seen a persistent pattern of concrete (black and white) thinking

Indeed.

I saw a news article the other day saying something like “Catholic Church changes position on gays”. I thought reporters were supposed to be informed on their subject matter?

One would think so…

I suspect that if you asked the reporters if they have a good grasp of Catholicism they would enthusiastically nod, “Of course! I was Catholic for 18 years! Went to Catholic schools even! Was an altar server!” But if you ask them a very simple question, such as, “What is the Immaculate Conception?” their answer would make us go like this:

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Can you guess what the #1 response by Catholics is when I pose the question: what is the IC?

 

[PRmerger]

The Church has never looked down on theological speculation. But this is different than disagreeing with the magisterium on doctrinal issues. No one is required to believe a theological speculation.

Egg-zactly.

What would need to be proferred would be something like this:

Hypothetical:
The Church has taught that Molinism is the correct understanding of predestination. Here is the document which states this: [insert alleged document here]

Catholic A says, "This document states ‘X’ "
Catholic B says, "No, this document states ‘not X’ "

That’s what would be a good refutation of my refutation of HH’s position.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

LOL!

You have shown an example of a constant teaching of the Church: the Church is more accepting of gays.

Both of your examples **have the same interpretation **of what the Church said. “The Church is more accepting of gays.”

That their reaction to differs is irrelevant.

One says it is consistent with Catholic teaching, the other says it’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

Perhaps the infallible interpreter needs an infallible interpreter?

 

[PRmerger]

One says it is consistent with Catholic teaching, the other says it’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

Perhaps the infallible interpreter needs an infallible interpreter?

You need to offer the document from the magisterium first, HH.

Then we can chat.

 

[clem456]

Can you guess what the #1 response by Catholics is when I pose the question: what is the IC?

Lemme guess (you have to be pretty old to get this)

 

[PRmerger]

Lemme guess (you have to be pretty old to get this)

Is that a Hail Mary?

I don’t usually get sports references, so…