Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[Isaiah45_9]

Did they, misdirect on their front page, use of apocrypha, and NOT deuterocanonical in Luther’s translation? Who speaks authoritatively for the Lutherans?

Last I checked Luther was a Catholic] Priest, not Lutheran. And Lutherans decide who speaks authoritatively for them. Not you or me.

 

[steve_b]

Your book?
This is your argumentation?
Your private book?
How am I supposed to argue against your book?

It was a figure of speech.
I:

Your lack of charity is astounding. 1 Cor 13.

You lecturing me on charity?
I:

For starters:

The Bishop of Rome did not have immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is something that came much later and after the Great Schism in ~1090.

Well, Peter had his last see in Rome. Are you suggesting Peter didn’t have immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction over the entire Church?

Consider the following

• How did Clement of Rome in the first century (~80 a.d.) resolve sedition in Corinth Greece between their bishops in sedition? It’s a long way from Rome to Corinth. John the apostle is still alive living in Ephesus. Ephesus is way closer to Corinth than Rome.
• Why not involve St John?
• Athens is only 50 miles away. They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why not ask Athens for help
• Thessolonika is closer to Corinth. They have valid bishops.
• Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops.
• Why didn’t Corinth use these other options? Why go to Rome?
• They went to Rome because that’s the chair of Peter.
• Ignatious letter to Rome, (~107 a.d.) one of his 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations, he writes Rome holds the presidency.
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. originally from Smyrna (today Turkey), was made bishop of Lyon, (today France,) said all must agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s , preeminent authority. “Against Heresies” and he names 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, down to his day. He did that to make several statements.

Do you want to refute any of that?
I:

What you see in those first 300 years is Autocephalous Churches much more in line with what we see in Eastern Orthodoxy today. Not one Bishop naming ALL the other Bishops, or one Bishops saying that unless you are subject to this one Bishop you have no salvation. This is obviously absent.

Maybe you know the answer to this.

Find the first time “in writing” where we see “Orthodox Church”. properly referenced of course
I:

That’s how you know. An individual. Your presumption that I don’t open the links to read is insulting. You fail to understand others point of view.

I gave evidence for my answer. NOT presumption NOT my opinion. What is it you’re arguing about anyway? The links are all operational. Do you have a problem with any of them
I:

According to your book and the easy and obvious knowledge you posses. The rest of us struggle.

My approach is easy. It gives a solid and quick history of the first 300 years of the Church. You asked for “WHY”. So I gave you my answer.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12375216]Let’s make this simple,

If you are inside the Church, then I can worship in the Lutheran church. So please quote for me a Catholic Church document that says I as a Catholic can skip mass and worship at a Lutheran church.

According to your tradition within the Church. I never denied that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome were outside the Church.

How many are canonical?

You tell me.
Is Tobit canonical? Luther included it.
Is Judith canonical? "
Is Eclesiasticus canonical? "
Is 1 Macc canonical? "
Is 2 Macc canonical? "
Is Baruch canonical? "
Is Wisdom canonical? "

If you say “yes” to any or all of these, then you have to say Luther included these canonical books in his translation.

I can’t be that relativistic about this

No one is asking you to be relativistic about it. Are the books Luther included canonical?
They either are, or they are not.

You’re LCMS correct?

Here’s what your branch of Lutheranism said about this subject

For centuries, every Lutheran’s Bible (Martin Luther’s German translation) included the Apocrypha. But the English Bibles used by Lutherans in more recent years do not.
“These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Now Concordia Publishing House announces the revival of these seemingly forgotten books with its publication of The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes.

Seems to represent what I’ve been saying.

Actually, it supports what I’ve been saying, that Luther included them, something you have denied. It further says that it has been the English Bibles that have not had them, something I have been telling you.

Jon,

Other LCMS disagree with your terminology. Your terminology goes against Luther’s language. There is NO DC in Luther’s mind for his bibel. Remember, to Luther, the apocrypha doesn’t equal to scripture. No “Deutero” canon in his mind. Ergo in Luther’s view, DC ≠ apocrypha. Remember Luther’s own words, These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures…"

He moved those books and changed their status.

Steve,
The confessions do not list a closed canon, therefore I have the freedom to refer to them as canonical, and I have the freedom to consider them such. And Luther himself said regularly in his prefaces that his opinion was just that.
Whether or not he considered them apocrypha doesn’t affect their status on the printed page. If I laid his translation of Wisdom, for example, next to a Catholic translation and, without telling you which was which, would it be obvious that one is canonical and the other is not?

Of course not.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You lecturing me on charity?

Still rolling eyes?

Well, Peter had his last see in Rome. Are you suggesting Peter didn’t have immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction over the entire Church?

Not suggesting. It’s a fact.

Consider the following

• How did Clement of Rome in the first century (~80 a.d.) resolve sedition in Corinth Greece between their bishops in sedition? It’s a long way from Rome to Corinth. John the apostle is still alive living in Ephesus. Ephesus is way closer to Corinth than Rome.
• Why not involve St John?

St John was imprisoned. And if your argument is Clement writing a letter to Corinth while being in Rome. How much more can it be said of St. Paul writing to the Church in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonians, Galatia, Philippians, Colossians?

• Athens is only 50 miles away. They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why not ask Athens for help
• Thessolonika is closer to Corinth. They have valid bishops.
• Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops.
• Why didn’t Corinth use these other options? Why go to Rome?
• They went to Rome because that’s the chair of Peter.

So your argument is from silence and lack of evidence and ignorance of the situation in each of those places and that Rome was the centre of economy and politics?

Very compelling.

• Ignatious letter to Rome, (~107 a.d.) one of his 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations, he writes Rome holds the presidency.

You forget Ignatius said: “Wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church”. He did not make any distinctions for any one particular city.

• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. originally from Smyrna (today Turkey), was made bishop of Lyon, (today France,) said all must agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s , preeminent authority. “Against Heresies” and he names 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, down to his day. He did that to make several statements.

I’m not arguing primacy, honor or preeminence. This is a red-herring.

Have a read of** Dictatus Papae**. This was completely absent for 1,000 years.

Do you want to refute any of that?

I just did all of it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Maybe you know the answer to this.

Find the first time “in writing” where we see “Orthodox Church”. properly referenced of course

OSAS and where is it in the Bible? See a pattern here?

If we understand the difference between a noun and an adjective the answer is pretty simple.

I gave evidence for my answer. NOT presumption NOT my opinion. What is it you’re arguing about anyway? The links are all operational. Do you have a problem with any of them

That’s evidence of how you know. Many others have read the same documents and don’t agree with you.

My approach is easy. It gives a solid and quick history of the first 300 years of the Church. You asked for “WHY”. So I gave you my answer.

Your personal view of the first 300 years. What are your references for those 300 years?

 

[clem456]

It’s as I’ve been saying, and the CCC spells it out, to leave the Catholic Church for a heretical group, or one in schism from, or dissension / division from, the Catholic Church, is a damnable offense. All of protestantism no matter the stripe, falls into those categories.

I am curious, how you make this leap from the Church’s proclamation of truth, to damnation, that disposition of a person’s soul
which belongs to God alone.

 

[guanophore]

iow, there are rifts & schisms, dissensions & heresies.

Which has consequences

Yes, of course, no one is disputing these facts.

a Catholic who knowing, that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and leaves the Church, there are grave consequences

Yes, but it is wrong to ascribe to Lutherans the sin of Luther:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
steve b;12375501:

It’s as I’ve been saying, and the CCC spells it out, to leave the Catholic Church for a heretical group, or one in schism from, or dissension / division from, the Catholic Church, is a damnable

offense. All of protestantism no matter the stripe, falls into those categories.

The ecclesial communities did, in the beginning, but the members of them today are not to be considered as such. We are not to charge them with the sin of separation. And frankly, one has to wonder why it seems so important for you to do so.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Your lack of charity is astounding. 1 Cor 13.

Maybe. But this statement was itself less than charitable, no?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Maybe. But this statement was itself less than charitable, no?

No doubt. I am yet to be perfected in patience

 

[steve_b]

According to your tradition within the Church. I never denied that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome were outside the Church.

You didn’t answer my question. Let me say it this way. Quote the Church document that says I as a Catholic can change allegiance and become Lutheran with no consequence to my soul?
J:

You tell me.
Is Tobit canonical? Luther included it.
Is Judith canonical? "
Is Eclesiasticus canonical? "
Is 1 Macc canonical? "
Is 2 Macc canonical? "
Is Baruch canonical? "
Is Wisdom canonical? "

If you say “yes” to any or all of these, then you have to say Luther included these canonical books in his translation.

Describe Luther’s apocrypha. Name the books in it.
J:

No one is asking you to be relativistic about it. Are the books Luther included canonical?

Those books you list are NOT canonical to Luther.
J:

Actually, it supports what I’ve been saying, that Luther included them, something you have denied. It further says that it has been the English Bibles that have not had them, something I have been telling you.

including them in his apocrypha.
J:

Steve,
The confessions do not list a closed canon, therefore I have the freedom to refer to them as canonical, and I have the freedom to consider them such. And Luther himself said regularly in his prefaces that his opinion was just that.

Jon,

Remember, even Luther admitted “we” got the scriptures from the Catholic Church. That means “canon”. He had the Vulgate. That’s the canon that has been in place since the council of Rome in 382. It’s the same canon we have today. 20 versions of that bible were printed "in German " before Luther printed his bibel.
J:

Whether or not he considered them apocrypha doesn’t affect their status on the printed page.

Excuse me? “These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures.

He affected all of protestantism.
J:

If I laid his translation of Wisdom, for example, next to a Catholic translation and, without telling you which was which, would it be obvious that one is canonical and the other is not?

Of course not.

Jon

When the LCMS link I quoted says Luther’s “apocrypha” NOT DC, do you agree with their statement?

 

[pablope]

Why?

Some people call John Chrysostom “Doctor of the Church”, yet he had some rather nasty things to say about Jewish folks as well.

But the John Chrysostom is a saint, by both east and west…and did not cause a split in the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Luther does not have the authority to change the “status” of any books in the canon.

That’s correct. You know that & I know that, but it doesn’t seem that Luther knew that, since he relegated them to an appendix and specifically labeled them Apocrypha.

It is important not to make Lutherans responsible to defend those ideas of Luther they have not embraced, or to hold them responsible for the fact that other groups, still claiming the term “Lutheran” have departed from the substance of the Lutheran confessions.

Ahh, but they HAVE embraced these ideas, de facto if not de jure.
Again, how many Lutherans have bibles that contain these books, even in an appendix?

If Lutherans wanted to disavow this categorization, great. If they wanted to use bibles with the deuteros in them, super. But they, by their actions, have embraced this classification.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

But the John Chrysostom is a saint, by both east and west…and did not cause a split in the Church.

Chrysostom is a saint in Lutheranism as well.

But for Catholic apologists, I wonder why his antisemitism (and the antisemitism of all the other Catholics througought the centuries) gets a pass, and is glossed over at best.

But Martin Luther’s antisemitism is harped on endlessly.

One gets a pass, the other is beyond the pale.

I wonder if anti-Judaism is the real issue here.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You didn’t answer my question. Let me say it this way. Quote the Church document that says I as a Catholic can change allegiance and become Lutheran with no consequence to my soul?

Lumen Gentium 16

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ **or **His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

(Bold mine)

You cannot force people to betray their conscience in seeking with an honest intention to please God and to serve Christ. You would be denying the God given gift of free will.

Dominus Iesus also explains the salvific mystery of Christ in other denominations and individuals.

Like I have been saying. What is easy and obvious to you - is not easy and obvious to others.

 

[pablope]

Tfrom the RCC while studying it, and hence never joined.

Quote:
And so, you are your own pastor/priest/bishop/pope? Do you determine yourself what to believe and what not to believe?

I follow the Holy Spirit, which includes being able to read and comprehend the scriptures. We indeed are a priesthood, as per scripture.

But where did the Bible say Jesus took away the ministerial priesthood?

So as per your reckoning, any one can pick up a bible and proclaim himself a preacher?

Quote:
No…it is not Scripture that is the final measuring stick

I do indeed hold to the five sola’s, so Scripture is indeed the final measuring stick in my POV. A teaching that is held forth as truth cannot contradict scripture, the RCC also agrees with that.

Okay…how does Scripture tell you which is the truth and which is not?

Would Scripture tell you to believe in the Immaculate Conception, for example?

Or the would Scripture tell you to believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist?

. A teaching that is held forth as truth cannot contradict scripture, the RCC also agrees with that

It is the interpretation that varies. So how can varying interpretations within the protestant communities, or the non denominationals, determine the truth?

Are you saying that as there are many members in a denomination or a non-denom, that is the number of truths?

Quote:
Would you agree to this quote below:

calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Not and be comfortable with his conclusions, no.

Why not? Don’t you think you demonstrate a perfect example of this…For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation."?

With regards the Marian dogmas, you were brought up in a tradition that did not believe in the Marian dogmas…so now this tradition guides your interpretion of Scripture, does it not?

We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and check the scripture to see if what we are being told or taught is accurate. There is interpretation, and then there is truth.

Accurate according to whom? What will be your basis for determining that what is being taught and told is accurate?

Quote:
But you yourself believe in yourself, in what you says Scripture says…
By no means, I don’t trust myself, I do trust God absolutely, however.

Okay…what has God told you about the Marian dogmas? Is the CC speaking the truth about them or not?

Quote:
Violation of Scripture according to whom? Are you the authority to actually say what Scripture says?
This isn’t a game I’m trying to play, I’m simply pointing out an issue that has developed from one who has always been outside of the RCC, looking in and studying the issue and the dogmas of the RCC. I can assure you, any denomination that claims to be the one true church, I do take their claims seriously and look into it.

Good for you.

[God is the final authority, but He did indeed give us the word and the Spirit and leads us into understanding it. If He says there is no other name by which I must be saved,[COLOR=“blue”] I believe Him. If someone says there’s another name by which I must be saved, I don’t believe them.

Can you point out where the CC has taught differently?

It isn’t even a question of if someone believes those things or not, it is now a question of what must be affirmed before salvation. The RCC has now added a name and facts connected to that name that I must confess if I’m to become a member of the RCC itself. If I believed all other dogmas, and what they represent, but those, I still could not join.

So then, it is a matter of who speaks the truth-the RCC or your interpretation of Scripture?

But by not believing in them, don’t you think you had made a binding and loosing decision yourself on what is needed for salvation?

 

[Kliska]

Pablope, I appreciate the dialogue but again, I’m not posting to try to sway someone, and I’m not interested in someone trying to sway me, with everything going on in the world and all the attacks on Christians I tire of in-fights or even arguments. I say that because I hope you’ll understand that I’m not going through everything here and answering all of it.

I can summarize my position like this; Scripture is contained in words, and while it is “living” and powerful a person also needs the Spirit. The Spirit of God indwells you and I as believers, it is He that teaches and guides via scripture, for scripture was written at His guidance and inspiration. So, scripture doesn’t guide the way the Spirit does, the Spirit brings believers to an understanding of truth, He is a full Person that is in relationship with us. As you believe the pope and the magisterium is ultimately guided, so I believe that each believer, indwelt, is ultimately guided. The Holy Spirit determines truth and guides us to it (or to Him, in the case of Jesus). I believe in absolute truth, and that the key to understanding it and faithing on it is the Spirit. I’ve seen many threads here that show that Catholics believe converts are guided to their church via the Holy Spirit, if you can understand that, y’all can understand what I’m saying; Christians believe in the power of the Spirit to guide, I’m not alone in that belief.

As for what “tradition” I was brought up in, I was brought up being taught that if you open your mouth about something, esp. anything having to do with religion, you better be able to provide evidence for your belief. The only major “tradition” I was surrounded by besides general Christian beliefs (I wasn’t raised in a church, but have watched, listened and learned from many pastors, teachers, ministers, and yes, even, nuns) was that the Bible is utterly true. I was taught text crit, and the history of the scriptures. So, I’ve gone through in my life and combed scripture to see if what I’m told or what I’m arguing is true. In short, to the nature of this thread; from my POV, I’m not “protesting” anything, in the sense I wasn’t raised against beliefs, but rather finding support for beliefs.

I believe 100% in the power of the Spirit to lead and guide, and I believe 100% in His faithfulness not to abandon even one of His sheep. I’m in fantastic hands, so are you.

 

[steido01]

Remember, even Luther admitted “we” got the scriptures from the Catholic Church. That means “canon”. He had the Vulgate. That’s the canon that has been in place since the council of Rome in 382. It’s the same canon we have today. 20 versions of that bible were printed "in German " before Luther printed his bibel.

You’re misrepresenting Luther here by imposing the Catholic understanding of ‘canon.’ I don’t think you did it on purpose (you’re a logical guy), so I’ll clarify for you. The original Luther quote you’re referencing is from one of his sermons on John 16 (a beautiful starting block for eventual reunion, if you ever get the chance to read the entire thing). It reads,

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists–that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

Note that Luther does not say Scripture, but Word of God. Luther (and Lutherans) do not understand Scripture to be, as Josh Strodbeck eloquently puts it, “just some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.” The Word of God to which Luther refers here is the Rule of Faith. Please don’t transpose the “Protestant” or post-Trent Catholic understandings of ‘canon’ and ‘Scripture’ onto the Lutheran understanding. We won’t defend either of those positions. Instead, please read Strodbeck’s link - I’ve yet to read a logical objection to the actual Lutheran understanding.

When the LCMS link I quoted says Luther’s “apocrypha” NOT DC, do you agree with their statement?

I think you’re taking it to mean something negative. The LCMS link you quoted is one that I originally posted. When you responded, you omitted the final sentences of my post. So I’ll repost them here for your response and contemplation:

Post by steido01:
Used in the liturgy, used in the hymnody. Occasionally spoken during readings in some Lutheran churches. What more does it need? So Lutherans don’t afford those books the same level [of authority] as the four Gospels, or other holy books. Catholics don’t either, really.

 

[clem456]

Lumen Gentium 16

(Bold mine)

Any part of a document has to be taken in the context of the whole. Here is LG 14:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

You reference LG 16. Section 16 does not excuse the explicit rejection of the Catholic Church. People frequently misread this passage to propose universal salvation. It points to who “may attain” salvation. (that includes every human person of all time who “may attain”).
It also does not list Protestantism as a “damnable offense” as Steveb says.
LG 15 is more relevant to this thread:

1. The Church recognizes that *in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in **some real way *they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

The Church speaks in positive and forward looking language, the language of hope and love. Please, let’s not use this pastoral language to water down the call to be united as one Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Any part of a document has to be taken in the context of the whole. Here is LG 14:

You reference LG 16. Section 16 does not excuse the explicit rejection of the Catholic Church. People frequently misread this passage to propose universal salvation. It points to who “may attain” salvation. (that includes every human person of all time who “may attain”).
It also does not list Protestantism as a “damnable offense” as Steveb says.
LG 15 is more relevant to this thread:

The Church speaks in positive and forward looking language, the language of hope and love. Please, let’s not use this pastoral language to water down the call to be united as one Church.

clem,

Not watering down at all. They are authoritative Church documents. Not opinions. Just like my link to Dominus Iesus. With which I strongly agree.

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Also, the element of knowledge and conscience play a major factor here. A person who is not being obstinate but sincere and honest is not a damnable person. The Church is extremely clear about this. And it needs to be stressed.

If I was a Non-Catholic, some of steve’s posts would make me run away (not walk) from anything that had the name Catholic. I have made this same mistake in the past and I wish someone would have brought it to my attention.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Pablope, I appreciate the dialogue but again, I’m not posting to try to sway someone, and I’m not interested in someone trying to sway me, with everything going on in the world and all the attacks on Christians I tire of in-fights or even arguments. I say that because I hope you’ll understand that I’m not going through everything here and answering all of it.

I can summarize my position like this; Scripture is contained in words, and while it is “living” and powerful a person also needs the Spirit. The Spirit of God indwells you and I as believers, it is He that teaches and guides via scripture, for scripture was written at His guidance and inspiration. So, scripture doesn’t guide the way the Spirit does, the Spirit brings believers to an understanding of truth, He is a full Person that is in relationship with us. As you believe the pope and the magisterium is ultimately guided, so I believe that each believer, indwelt, is ultimately guided. The Holy Spirit determines truth and guides us to it (or to Him, in the case of Jesus). I believe in absolute truth, and that the key to understanding it and faithing on it is the Spirit. I’ve seen many threads here that show that Catholics believe converts are guided to their church via the Holy Spirit, if you can understand that, y’all can understand what I’m saying; Christians believe in the power of the Spirit to guide, I’m not alone in that belief.

As for what “tradition” I was brought up in, I was brought up being taught that if you open your mouth about something, esp. anything having to do with religion, you better be able to provide evidence for your belief. The only major “tradition” I was surrounded by besides general Christian beliefs (I wasn’t raised in a church, but have watched, listened and learned from many pastors, teachers, ministers, and yes, even, nuns) was that the Bible is utterly true. I was taught text crit, and the history of the scriptures. So, I’ve gone through in my life and combed scripture to see if what I’m told or what I’m arguing is true. In short, to the nature of this thread; from my POV, I’m not “protesting” anything, in the sense I wasn’t raised against beliefs, but rather finding support for beliefs.

I believe 100% in the power of the Spirit to lead and guide, and I believe 100% in His faithfulness not to abandon even one of His sheep. I’m in fantastic hands, so are you.

St Peter again

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;