Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?

[guanophore]

I understand, but the Orthodox, Copts, Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church, and even some Catholic Church of England folks get touchy if “Catholic” is used strictly to refer to “the Church that looks to the primacy of the bishop of Rome”. Even that phrase is a bit too broad, because many others also say they view the bishop of Rome as “first among equals”, it’s just they emphasize the “among equals” part.

They won’t be upset if you avoid labelling all Catholics as Roman. They have all developed language to distinguish themselves from being in communion with the bishop of Rome.

The phrase “Roman Catholic” doesn’t leave out the minor Rites, in my opinion, and it’s a sight better than “Romish Catholics” or, worse yet, “Popish Catholics”.

I agree that it does not sound as derogatory as the other terms, but yes, it does too leave out the other Rites, who are pleased not to be “Roman” in culture and form. Furthermore, all of them are in equal standing, so referring to them as “minor” you have revealed the very bias that I am taking exception to with the use of the term.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I am still having trouble understanding that if the Church predated the NT SCriptures, and the Church compiled the NT Scriptures, and the Church listed the Canon of Scriptures, and Scriptures call the Church the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth,” and no where do the Scriptures say that they are above the Church, how that came to be the case.

It’s partly a different concept of “Church” and a different concept of “church”. This is painting in pretty broad strokes, but in general “the Church” means all the believers still alive on earth at a given time. (The Church Triumphant is phrased differently. While the “communion of saints” still refers also to those who have passed on, different Protestants come to different conclusions about exactly how the communion between those on earth and those glorified works). And so to the statement “the Church predated the NT Scriptures” a Protestant might respond “well, duh.” They’re not thinking of Church in terms of authority structures, just the body of all believers on earth. If you say “the Magisterium predated the NT Scriptures”, you’ll get a different response.

If you say “the Church compiled the NT Scriptures”, I think most Protestants without really realizing it will think you are saying “the churches compiled the NT Scriptures”. That would translate to something more like meaning that small groups of believers meeting in house churches read the various purported apostolic writings going around and compared them to what they remembered hearing the apostles say and their own experiences (some of which were direct contacts with Jesus himself). Some they accepted and others rejected. Through the generations a general body of literature was accepted by most as authoritative, with certainly a certain amount of disagreement. By the time any council of bishops got together to formally proclaim a canon, the vast majority of the work was already done - in house churches. Again, if you say “the Magisterium compiled the NT Scriptures”, you’ll get disagreement.

I think most Protestants (with the exception of Catholic Church of England and maybe liturgical Lutherans?) would say Paul was referring to the body of believers on the earth at a given time when he referred to the church as the pillar and bulwark of truth. I think if you say to a Protestant that Paul was referring to the body of believers that recognize the successor of Peter as the leader of all Christians everywhere, you would get anything from loud guffaws to incredulous looks.

Most Protestants view the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the bishop of Rome at its head as the late invention of scandalously power-hungry western clergy. Since the NT writers would have had no concept of such a structure, there would be no reason for them to specifically state that the Scriptures were in authority over it.

“Church”, to Protestants, is simply a very different concept. That’s my take, anyway.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

They won’t be upset if you avoid labelling all Catholics as Roman. They have all developed language to distinguish themselves from being in communion with the bishop of Rome.

I agree that it does not sound as derogatory as the other terms, but yes, it does too leave out the other Rites, who are pleased not to be “Roman” in culture and form. Furthermore, all of them are in equal standing, so referring to them as “minor” you have revealed the very bias that I am taking exception to with the use of the term.

I should have said “minority Rites”. My apologies.

And, as promised, I’ll refer you to this post:

Ah, but now you put me in a bind! To satisfy you, I have to offend others. So, since you refuse to be so charitable as to look for another phrase, , “Roman Catholic” it is (until we find a better term), whether referring to Latin, Byzantine, or whatever Rite.

I’ll refer Guanophore to this post whenever I’m challenged on the phrasing.

And if you can give me a good phrase, according to the terms of my query to qui, I’ll use it:

If you can come up with a phrase of less than twenty letters that implicitly includes the other Rites as well as Latin, limits those included to Rites that look to the bishop of Rome as the head of Christ’s Church on earth, are in full communion with it (so, excluding SSPX), and is a phrase used somewhere in reasonably ordinary conversation, why, I’ll be delighted to use it. Oh, one last test: in can’t be offensive to my Latin Rite Roman Catholic wife or in-laws.

 

[t68ware]

I am curious about the concept of TULIP. (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irrestiable Grace and Perserverance of Saints.) As a Protestant this was seldom discussed by my general congregation and I do not believe many understood it. As I studied and became more involved I found a hard line between Protestant denominations that believe and those that did not. I scanned just a few websites and still find these thoughts. Can Protestants tell me where they believe their Church is on this issue and what their beliefs are about this? I am just curios and am trying to understand the perspective everyone is coming from.

TULIP is hard core Calvinism. The way it is taught today is not how Calvin himself would teach it. While I am Wesleyan and my denomination does not believe in TULIP, I have read lots of Calvin. He was a great theologian, and while he is very set on the soverignity of God, and nothing, and I mean nothing, happens without his knowledge and His hand being in it, Calvinists today teach a very hard core Calvinism, and TULIP has become distorted. I have a book that summarizes Calvins Institutes, and I recommend reading something along that line to get a clearer picture of what he actually taught.

 

[guanophore]

I should have said “minority Rites”. My apologies. And, as promised, I’ll refer you to this post:

Yes, I saw that one too. What you are saying is that you are choosing to give respect to imagined groups of people who are not present over those that are present.

And if you can give me a good phrase, according to the terms of my query to qui, I’ll use it:

You might as well say “Latin Rite”, as it is just as poor a descriptor, and makes it more clear that you are deliberately leaving out the rest of Catholicism.

 

[ralphinal]

It’s partly a different concept of “Church” and a different concept of “church”. This is painting in pretty broad strokes, but in general “the Church” means all the believers still alive on earth at a given time. (The Church Triumphant is phrased differently. While the “communion of saints” still refers also to those who have passed on, different Protestants come to different conclusions about exactly how the communion between those on earth and those glorified works). And so to the statement “the Church predated the NT Scriptures” a Protestant might respond “well, duh.” They’re not thinking of Church in terms of authority structures, just the body of all believers on earth. If you say “the Magisterium predated the NT Scriptures”, you’ll get a different response.

Well, perhaps. although the Apostles are the Magisterium in the Bible

If you say “the Church compiled the NT Scriptures”, I think most Protestants without really realizing it will think you are saying “the churches compiled the NT Scriptures”. That would translate to something more like meaning that small groups of believers meeting in house churches read the various purported apostolic writings going around and compared them to what they remembered hearing the apostles say and their own experiences (some of which were direct contacts with Jesus himself). Some they accepted and others rejected. Through the generations a general body of literature was accepted by most as authoritative, with certainly a certain amount of disagreement. By the time any council of bishops got together to formally proclaim a canon, the vast majority of the work was already done - in house churches. Again, if you say “the Magisterium compiled the NT Scriptures”, you’ll get disagreement.

I would hate to argue history. To say that there were not Church councils is to deny historical facts. This was not pure luck.

I think most Protestants (with the exception of Catholic Church of England and maybe liturgical Lutherans?) would say Paul was referring to the body of believers on the earth at a given time when he referred to the church as the pillar and bulwark of truth. I think if you say to a Protestant that Paul was referring to the body of believers that recognize the successor of Peter as the leader of all Christians everywhere, you would get anything from loud guffaws to incredulous looks.

How did Jesus mean the word? Loose association or organized, physical presence? What does it mean to be pillar and bulwark of Truth?

Most Protestants view the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the bishop of Rome at its head as the late invention of scandalously power-hungry western clergy. Since the NT writers would have had no concept of such a structure, there would be no reason for them to specifically state that the Scriptures were in authority over it.

“Church”, to Protestants, is simply a very different concept. That’s my take, anyway.

I agree that Church is a different concept with Protestants. I am not sure that that concept is scriptural.

The late invention caught my eye. How late do people think it is?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Well, perhaps. although the Apostles are the Magisterium in the Bible

That is indeed the Vatican-Led Catholic view. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing, I’m trying to find a way to avoid offending Guanophore’s Byzantine sensibilities without also offending the numerous other organizations that claim to be “the Catholic Church”, and that’s the best I’ve come up with so far.)

I would hate to argue history. To say that there were not Church councils is to deny historical facts. This was not pure luck.

No big meeting happens without a lot of effort, but even in later centuries the questions to be answered and the arguments to be presented were largely developed outside those councils. A few brilliant bishops may have developed strong views with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from priests or laity, but I doubt very many. Is the only important part the physical gathering of bishops?

How did Jesus mean the word? Loose association or organized, physical presence? What does it mean to be pillar and bulwark of Truth?

After a short description of how Christians ought to behave (“lift up holy hands in prayer”, “dress modestly”) and the requirements for someone to be a bishop or deacon, he says he’s writing to so he “will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The plainest meaning is that he’s referring to a local church, or parish if you will. Of course, one wouldn’t expect Paul to say “but you can be wild and crazy if you go to some other city”, so he must also mean the larger church, that these are behaviors expected in any city.

The main point of that isolated phrase, in any case, is the relationship between the church (or Church) and truth. The c/Church is meant to hold up and defend what is true. I’m sure that’s what the founders of this forum had in mind for it’s purpose, too.

As to the loose association argument, my Latin Rite father-in-law tells me the core of Greek pillars was relatively loose. That’s what made them resistant to earthquakes, and why so many are still standing. But more importantly, large buildings had lots of them. So maybe he really was referring to the local church, and saying that one local church was like a pillar, and that local churches together hold up the truth.

Ah, the joys of trying to unpack the metaphors of Scripture! I used to spend a lot more time at it. Now the question hits me, “Are you behaving appropriately? Are you upholding and protecting the truth? Is your faith community (and I attend both a Protestant service and Latin Rite service every week, so I include both of them) behaving appropriately and upholding and protecting the truth?” And I have to admit I could do better, and I could do better helping them.

I agree that Church is a different concept with Protestants. I am not sure that that concept is scriptural.?

Well, you can see that if somebody limited their understanding of “Church” to only what could be found in the Gospels, they would come up with something that looked very different than what we see described in the epistles. Let’s call it a “gospellian” church. You’d have preachers that roamed the countryside with a small group of core disciples and a larger group of hangers-on, which would then multiply into more of the same.

A gospellian church would be scriptural, in that the elements are found in Scripture, but most of us would think it was unnecessarily limiting.

The late invention caught my eye. How late do people think it is?

It depends on which part of the structure you’re talking about. Most Protestants I know view the Vatican-Led Church as a vast, ramshackle building that has had entire wings added on, torn down, or remodeled over the centuries. A portion of it is built on Christ (the part we agree with, naturally!), and the rest is built on Greek and Roman culture and European political structures.

So, for example, outlawing house churches would be viewed as a later invention, the Holy Roman Empire as a much later invention, and the ability of one bishop under some circumstance to make infallible statements might be the latest invention.

 

[PerryJ]

TULIP is hard core Calvinism. The way it is taught today is not how Calvin himself would teach it.

I fully understand the thoughts (or think I do) of Calvinism as this was the basis of our Baptisit belief. (Note not all Baptist are Calvinist; however, many are). I have found on this website that Catholics and Protestant seem to stand against one another and do not truly discuss Christ from a philosophical or theological point of view. Often the debates come down to picking and choosing verses within the Bible and not looking at the Bible in total. To change the discussion to have both sides better understand each other I wanted to engage Protestants in some of their beliefs. For example individuals that follow TULIP will be able quote verse after verse that supports this belief. The reverse is also true. The same could be said for the"rapture". There is a wide range of opinions on the Bible and its true meaning. I was trying to take the conversation to a deeper level than “twist” scripture to what Protestants truly believe and why.

 

[guanophore]

That is indeed the Vatican-Led Catholic view. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing, I’m trying to find a way to avoid offending Guanophore’s Byzantine sensibilities without also offending the numerous other organizations that claim to be “the Catholic Church”, and that’s the best I’ve come up with so far.)

Thank you immensely for your consideration.

On the contrary, the Apostles being considerd the Magesterium is not a “Vatican-led view”. This is the Apostolic Tradition, and it shared by all those who received the Apostolic faith, including the Orthodox, who have no great affection for “Vatican-led” views in general. This is why I think it is so important not to hang these beliefs on Rome. Such beliefs were held by the Church all over the world for five centuries before the Vatican even existed.

No big meeting happens without a lot of effort, but even in later centuries the questions to be answered and the arguments to be presented were largely developed outside those councils. A few brilliant bishops may have developed strong views with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from priests or laity, but I doubt very many. Is the only important part the physical gathering of bishops?

Certainly not, but an essential one. We can see at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts that much debate had gone on before the Council, and Peter had his story to tell, as well as Paul and Barnabus. But, each presented their findings to the assembly, and a decision was made that was binding.

After a short description of how Christians ought to behave (“lift up holy hands in prayer”, “dress modestly”) and the requirements for someone to be a bishop or deacon, he says he’s writing to so he “will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The plainest meaning is that he’s referring to a local church, or parish if you will. Of course, one wouldn’t expect Paul to say “but you can be wild and crazy if you go to some other city”, so he must also mean the larger church, that these are behaviors expected in any city.

I agree. The Church was considered One throughout the whole world.

As to the loose association argument, my Latin Rite father-in-law tells me the core of Greek pillars was relatively loose. That’s what made them resistant to earthquakes, and why so many are still standing. But more importantly, large buildings had lots of them. So maybe he really was referring to the local church, and saying that one local church was like a pillar, and that local churches together hold up the truth.

I think this is a good example. The faith was taught to whole generations of people, from the time of Moses until now. Some do fall from the faith, but the faith is preserved because there are always some who cling to the Traditions as they were handed on.

Well, you can see that if somebody limited their understanding of “Church” to only what could be found in the Gospels, they would come up with something that looked very different than what we see described in the epistles. Let’s call it a “gospellian” church. You’d have preachers that roamed the countryside with a small group of core disciples and a larger group of hangers-on, which would then multiply into more of the same. A gospellian church would be scriptural, in that the elements are found in Scripture, but most of us would think it was unnecessarily limiting.

Good point. I think this is one reason that people have a hard time recognizing the Church today. The preaching eventually spread over the whole world, and it naturally will not be recognizeable as the small seed of mustard from which it came.

It depends on which part of the structure you’re talking about. Most Protestants I know view the Vatican-Led Church as a vast, ramshackle building that has had entire wings added on, torn down, or remodeled over the centuries. A portion of it is built on Christ (the part we agree with, naturally!), and the rest is built on Greek and Roman culture and European political structures.

While I agree with this, it goes even beyond this. There are also “wings” that are not Gk, Roman, or European at all. They are Asian, Egyptian, Arabian, etc. My arguement about limiting Catholicism to “Rome” is not a disrespect at all to the Latin Rite, or the Vatican, but it reinforces the myopia of the Western view of Catholicism. Europe and the Americas have very little experience with the universal nature of the Catholic faith. This is compounded by Protestant objections, which come from not only a lack of knowledge about the breadth of the Catholic faith, but misunderstand the Roman Rite against which they are Protesting.

So, for example, outlawing house churches would be viewed as a later invention, the Holy Roman Empire as a much later invention, and the ability of one bishop under some circumstance to make infallible statements might be the latest invention.

Did house churches get outlawed? Somebody better tell the Bishops, because the catechism states that the household is the primary church!

I do agree that the Holy Roman Empire was a later invention. However, it was not one of the Teachings of the Church. It was a political affectation of the faith of the people, and not instruction in faith and morals. I also think that becoming involved in secular matters was very damaging to the health of the church members, especially those in positions of power and authority who were thereby corruped.

As far as infallibility, I don’t think that can be called “late”. Clearly Peter sets the example for this with his confession of faith.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

That is indeed the Vatican-Led Catholic view. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing, I’m trying to find a way to avoid offending Guanophore’s Byzantine sensibilities without also offending the numerous other organizations that claim to be “the Catholic Church”, and that’s the best I’ve come up with so far.)

]Thank you immensely for your consideration.

Well, that’s a relief. I was just in the middle of a post appealing to the others as to whether the honor of your Rite had been satisfied.

Vatican-Led it is!

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s partly a different concept of “Church” and a different concept of “church”. This is painting in pretty broad strokes, but in general “the Church” means all the believers still alive on earth at a given time. {snip}
“Church”, to Protestants, is simply a very different concept. That’s my take, anyway.

Thanks Crazy for giving us the Protestant perspective on Catholic teaching. This understanding will go far in helping us dialogue with non-Catholics. I appreciate your willingness to respond and explain in a respectful and credible manner.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Did house churches get outlawed? Somebody better tell the Bishops, because the catechism states that the household is the primary church!

I’m not ignoring this part of your post, I’m trying to find the answer. I ran across the line about bishops becoming frustrated with spontaneous house meetings without a priest present and one of the patriarchs outlawing them approx 400-500 A.D. I’m pretty sure I know what book it’s in, but it’s packed in a box for a move.

It wasn’t referring to the family household, but meetings that were deemed official by the participants, without any clergy present. The kind of thing that Origen complained about, when he said he would go preach in somebody’s home and a few people would sneak off to other rooms to tell dirty jokes.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Thanks Crazy for giving us the Protestant perspective on Catholic teaching. This understanding will go far in helping us dialogue with non-Catholics. I appreciate your willingness to respond and explain in a respectful and credible manner.

You’re welcome!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Thank you immensely for your consideration.

On the contrary, the Apostles being considerd the Magesterium is not a “Vatican-led view”. This is the Apostolic Tradition, and it shared by all those who received the Apostolic faith, including the Orthodox, who have no great affection for “Vatican-led” views in general. This is why I think it is so important not to hang these beliefs on Rome. Such beliefs were held by the Church all over the world for five centuries before the Vatican even existed.

“Such beliefs”, I agree, are held by the Orthodox and Copts and have been for a long time. I didn’t know they used the word “Magisterium”, since I haven’t run across it reading their web pages. I assumed that word was specific to the Vatican.

While I agree with this, it goes even beyond this. There are also “wings” that are not Gk, Roman, or European at all. They are Asian, Egyptian, Arabian, etc. My arguement about limiting Catholicism to “Rome” is not a disrespect at all to the Latin Rite, or the Vatican, but it reinforces the myopia of the Western view of Catholicism. Europe and the Americas have very little experience with the universal nature of the Catholic faith.

It had never occurred to me that including the diversity of expression was an important part of the term “Catholic”, rather than the term simply referring to geographical distribution. As a Protestant, I tend to take wild variations in expression as a given, hardly to be remarked upon. But I can see why that would be important to the term “Catholic”.

This is compounded by Protestant objections, which come from not only a lack of knowledge about the breadth of the Catholic faith, but misunderstand the Roman Rite against which they are Protesting.

I dunno, I think if you completely eliminated the entire Latin Rite, Protestant objections would remain essentially the same. The core issue has always been “Where do we go to authoritatively settle disputes?” Our answers would still be different without the Latin Rite. (BTW, I use “Latin Rite” because my wife’s priest does. He acted as a deacon in the Byzantine Rite while in seminary, so he mentions you folks more often than most Latin Rite priests. Why do you prefer “Roman Rite”?)

 

[ralphinal]

That is indeed the Vatican-Led Catholic view. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing, I’m trying to find a way to avoid offending Guanophore’s Byzantine sensibilities without also offending the numerous other organizations that claim to be “the Catholic Church”, and that’s the best I’ve come up with so far.)

Perhaps. The EO would say that they are the same as an Ecuminical Council as well. Either way, it is more than a convention.

No big meeting happens without a lot of effort, but even in later centuries the questions to be answered and the arguments to be presented were largely developed outside those councils. A few brilliant bishops may have developed strong views with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from priests or laity, but I doubt very many. Is the only important part the physical gathering of bishops?

You think the councils were unimportant? Oh my. No, the councils WERE the deciding factor. Period. Just look up the Arian Controversy and you will see that going into the Council, 75% of the Church held those veiws yet the Council refuted them. Yes, the gathering of the Bishops is the important part, just like the Doctors are the important part of the AMA and the attornies are of the Bar association. If a doctor told you that your treatment was based on what the concensous of non-medical people thought was best, how fast would you run?

After a short description of how Christians ought to behave (“lift up holy hands in prayer”, “dress modestly”) and the requirements for someone to be a bishop or deacon, he says he’s writing to so he “will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The plainest meaning is that he’s referring to a local church, or parish if you will. Of course, one wouldn’t expect Paul to say “but you can be wild and crazy if you go to some other city”, so he must also mean the larger church, that these are behaviors expected in any city.

The main point of that isolated phrase, in any case, is the relationship between the church (or Church) and truth. The c/Church is meant to hold up and defend what is true. I’m sure that’s what the founders of this forum had in mind for it’s purpose, too.

As to the loose association argument, my Latin Rite father-in-law tells me the core of Greek pillars was relatively loose. That’s what made them resistant to earthquakes, and why so many are still standing. But more importantly, large buildings had lots of them. So maybe he really was referring to the local church, and saying that one local church was like a pillar, and that local churches together hold up the truth.

Ah, the joys of trying to unpack the metaphors of Scripture! I used to spend a lot more time at it. Now the question hits me, “Are you behaving appropriately? Are you upholding and protecting the truth? Is your faith community (and I attend both a Protestant service and Latin Rite service every week, so I include both of them) behaving appropriately and upholding and protecting the truth?” And I have to admit I could do better, and I could do better helping them.

I like that last part. Back to Paul. If the churches are pillars and bulwarks, how are there multiple truths? Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Amish cannot all be right.

Well, you can see that if somebody limited their understanding of “Church” to only what could be found in the Gospels, they would come up with something that looked very different than what we see described in the epistles. Let’s call it a “gospellian” church. You’d have preachers that roamed the countryside with a small group of core disciples and a larger group of hangers-on, which would then multiply into more of the same.

A gospellian church would be scriptural, in that the elements are found in Scripture, but most of us would think it was unnecessarily limiting.

Jesus said that his CHurch would be like a City on a Hill. In other words, clearly visible and no doubts about what or where it is. A loose association of beleivers is nothing of the sort.

It depends on which part of the structure you’re talking about. Most Protestants I know view the Vatican-Led Church as a vast, ramshackle building that has had entire wings added on, torn down, or remodeled over the centuries. A portion of it is built on Christ (the part we agree with, naturally!), and the rest is built on Greek and Roman culture and European political structures.

So, for example, outlawing house churches would be viewed as a later invention, the Holy Roman Empire as a much later invention, and the ability of one bishop under some circumstance to make infallible statements might be the latest invention.

I can see why they would think that. The important part is that the majority of it has been there from 33 AD. No Protestant denomination can say that without some slight historical gymnastics.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I like that last part. Back to Paul. If the churches are pillars and bulwarks, how are there multiple truths? Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Amish cannot all be right.

No, we can’t all be right about everything, but one thing I have noticed is that each group seems to have a very strong, well, I don’t have a word for it, but think of it as a combination of “gift”, and “ministry”, and maybe “perspective” that is important to heed. While baptism might seem to be the indicated strength of the Baptists, I personally think they show a profound love and support for foreign missions that is a challenge to us all. They’re not so hot on developing strong local communities, but the Methodists did so to a stunning degree. We could all learn from the early Methodists. (Today they seem intent on being subsumed by the culture, but you never know what the Holy Spirit has in mind). Catholics have an appreciation for the worldwide church no one else can equal, and the Amish emphasize a simplicity of life and spirituality that can go a bit overboard, but is still a worthwhile challenge to think about.

Jesus said that his CHurch would be like a City on a Hill. In other words, clearly visible and no doubts about what or where it is. A loose association of beleivers is nothing of the sort.

One of the problems with trying to extend the metaphors in Scripture is that they often use images to which you can attach a great many details. Cities in those days often were fairly scattered, even those on hills, and naturally so with City Planning being a career far in the future - but they wouldn’t have looked that way to an ancient traveler. In fact, they couldn’t be missed, which was part of Jesus’ point. They would have been a welcome sight no matter how sloppy the layout. The really big cities did have a kind of planning authority, but those also tended to have fairly serious issues with public sanitation. (The ones that didn’t weren’t on hills but near rivers.) How would you fit that into Christ’s analogy? Or the walls, the guards, the crowded marketplaces?

And that’s without pointing out that it was part of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and he was referring to “you”. You, who? The crowd that listened to his teaching? The crowd standing as an analogy for Jewish people in general? The “you” referred to earlier as “blessed are you when men insult you and persecute you…because of me?” While the first two might be given some weight, the most weight has to be given to the third possibility. That is who is “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” that cannot be hidden.

The point of that passage isn’t to give an analogy by which we can construct the structures of a church, but to say “let your light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” To be challenged by that passage to live a life of salt and light openly is terrific. I don’t think you can use it as a way of comparing various Christian organizations in any sophisticated way. Those that let their light shine before men through good deeds fit the passage; those that don’t, don’t.

I can see why they would think that. The important part is that the majority of it has been there from 33 AD.

Since so many Protestants claim to be trying to get back to the New Testament model of church, as you travel forward from 33 AD, you could say a prayer to Christopher the patron saint of travelers for we separated brethren who are traveling back there.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, Since so many Protestants claim to be trying to get back to the New Testament model of church, as you travel forward from 33 AD, you could say a prayer to Christopher the patron saint of travelers for we separated brethren who are traveling back there.

That’s precious (bolding mine)

Grant me, O Lord, that I may with joy and courtesy go on my way. St. Christopher, holy patron of travelers, protect me and lead me safely to my destiny. Amen.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Yes, the gathering of the Bishops is the important part, just like the Doctors are the important part of the AMA and the attornies are of the Bar association. If a doctor told you that your treatment was based on what the concensous of non-medical people thought was best, how fast would you run?

As I was digging in my garden, it occurred to me that responding to this might be another way of illustrating the Protestant perspective (if there is such a thing as “the” Protestant perspective).

When I was young, I would not only have run but mocked and scoffed. Then, years ago I had a surgery that left me feeling completely nauseated in recovery, which is not uncommon, but I felt very strongly that if I could just get a little something to eat I would be fine. The medical professionals would give me nothing. Oh, no, they said, if you’re feeling nauseated you’ll just throw it up, so here, take this anti-nausea pill. And pain pill, and another anti-nausea pill. I was there for hours until the shift change, when the new person said Oh, you want something to eat? Here, let me get you some saltine crackers. Instant relief. My wife was very upset. “They were trying to kill you with drugs!” I thought that was a bit over the top, but as we looked back on that surgery, we realized that there were a lot of things done very poorly, starting with a refusal to look for alternatives to surgery.
A few months later we had our first baby, and very nearly had to have a C-section because of the hospital staff’s, well, incompetence is probably too strong a word, but let us say overexcessive concern with protocols for avoiding lawsuits. Our next child was born at home, in the bathtub, with a lot less fuss and much, much, much less danger to the baby.

Since then we’ve learned that there are a lot of simple prevention and treatment options that doctors don’t know about, aren’t trained in, and won’t ever be because those options don’t generate profit. Surgery, drugs, various prophylactics can be helpful and even necessary for some people, but the majority of us really can get over our colds, and many more serious illnesses, without antibiotics and steroids.

Now why would doctors not tell you that a simple vitamin will do you far more good than pharmaceuticals? Basically, they’ve been trained that way, and many of them simply don’t know any different. They don’t have time to read the original literature and find out the fine details, even if they had the biochemical training to really understand them. Doctors get their information from the pharmaceutical company representatives who visit them, from trade journals supported by those same companies, and from their professional associations, which make plenty of money off the purified chemicals too. They have every financial incentive to prescribe you drugs that make somebody a lot of money, and very little incentive to look for simple, cheap alternatives.

(continued in next post)

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Yes, the gathering of the Bishops is the important part, just like the Doctors are the important part of the AMA and the attornies are of the Bar association. If a doctor told you that your treatment was based on what the concensous of non-medical people thought was best, how fast would you run?

(continued from previous)

I’m fortunate in that I do have the biochemical training to figure out what’s really been said, and what is artfully left unsaid in scientific primary literature. For eighteen years I worked in various laboratories, and one thing I noticed was that the pressure to find the money just to keep the laboratory going made for some very interesting ways of presenting data. Spin becomes second nature to many scientists, and it can be very difficult to detect if you are not intimately familiar with the difficulties and limitations of certain kinds of lab work. Even if doctors had the time to read all the primary literature, and could really understand it, would they be able to detect the spin and know how it would affect their patients?

So no, I really don’t trust doctors to tell me what treatments are best for me. I trust them to tell me what treatments are very profitable to somebody and not likely to kill me quickly enough to make good material for a lawsuit. My preference is to go find somebody on the internet who did go and spend the time to read all the primary literature and sift through it. Then I look at what their conclusions are, and compare with the official outlook. I can look at that literature myself and see if I agree, or if it’s worth pursuing for whatever problem I’m facing. Sometimes the purified pharmaceutical really is the best answer, and sometimes a better answer is cod liver oil or more veggies.

So what does this have to do with a Protestant perspective?

Well, whether you agree with their conclusion or not, the sixteenth century Protestants had come to view the bishops with much the same level of wariness that I’ve come to view doctors. Just like the internet has given me access to a lot of research and data sifting done by motivated amateurs, the explosion of printed materials had given them direct access to the Scriptures and various people’s pontifications thereon. They could see for themselves that the complex formulas the bishops were presenting to them looked far simpler when they read the Scriptures. Many of them came to the conclusion that the bishops were more motivated by money than by the spiritual health of their flock. That was undoubtedly unfair in some instances and charitable in others.

In any case, the bishops lost the trust those common people had placed in them before. They failed to demonstrate that the complexity they had been preaching was a necessary extension of the simplicity of the gospel, and for the most part they seemed to feel that such a demonstration was beneath their episcopal dignity anyway. Then, by hunting and hounding these people of good, simple faith, they completely destroyed whatever remained of their credibility in the eyes of Protestants. None of us since have trusted a gathering of bishops any more than I trust the conclusions of an AMA convention, and that goes for any gathering of bishops, past or present. If that system could produce as corrupt a council as Trent, the thinking goes, none of it can be taken for granted.

The Vatican II council went to some inspired trouble to invite outsiders, and that helped restore a certain amount of good will. However, it will be centuries and many more such councils before Protestants are really able to study their conclusions without a profound sense of suspicion while reading.

Undoubtedly this seems harsh and unfair to you, and to some degree it is. There has been plenty of harsh and unfair rhetoric over the centuries and hopefully it continues to fade as the Holy Spirit heals the wounds of the past.

Blessing upon you, and may we all become unified before Christ returns.

It looks like this thread is fading, so I should go find another.

 

[guanophore]

Well, that’s a relief. I was just in the middle of a post appealing to the others as to whether the honor of your Rite had been satisfied.

Vatican-Led it is!

:dancing: