Here is your chance Protestants!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
oriel36:
The Holy Spirit or Advocate is that faculty which connects Jesus and God or temporal life and Eternal Life together and teaches where they mesh and seperate.

The great Divine Will which accepts two types of Christians within the Apostolic community permits the lower interpretation until such time as the Spirit actually becomes manifest as Jesus says it does,not through any decision a person makes but as a gift of God.

The indulgence which facilitates prayer “to the Holy Spirit” is superseded by conversion in the Spirit ,there is no Holy Spirit to pray to because being born in the Spirit it is impossible to become unborn no more than it is possible to become physically unborn.

"111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77 "
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#III

The contemporary version of the Alogi certainly are present and this does present a nightmare.The heritage of contemplative Christianity no longer has place within a Church which is increasingly identified by the rules of the Cathecism which must suit those who have a legalistic bent,at least from the indications I have witnessed in this forum.

Attempting to make the Cathechism important and finding loopholes is about as far removed from Christ and Christianity as possible and where contradictions exists,apply a bit of common sense instead of being rabid.

Those who have remained silent and thought it better to see the sacred Christian writings cut to pieces for the cathechismal purposes should be ashamed of themselves.
There is no Holy Spirit to pray to? Where is this found in any of the writings of the Fathers, Creeds or Councils?

The document you quoted also says,

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit **who **gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (”. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81)."

Please try a be consistant.

BTW, how do you come by what you believe? Its obviously not through Catholic sources. Does God speak to you directly?

Peace
 

St. Paul saith, “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”[6] Now mark what is “that which is perfect,” and “that which is in part.”
“That which is perfect” is a Being, who hath comprehended and included all things in Himself and His own Substance, and without whom, and beside whom, there is no true Substance, and in whom all things have their Substance. For He is the Substance of all things, and is in Himself unchangeable and immoveable, and changeth and moveth all things else. But “that which is in part,” or the Imperfect, is that which hath its source in, or springeth from the Perfect; just as a brightness or a visible appearance floweth out from the sun or a candle, and appeareth to be somewhat, this or that. And it is called a creature; and of all these “things which are in part,” none is the Perfect. So also the Perfect is none of the things which are in part. The things which are in part can be apprehended, known, and expressed; but the Perfect cannot be apprehended, known, or expressed by any creature as creature. Therefore we do not give a name to the Perfect, for it is none of these. The creature as creature cannot know nor apprehend it, name nor conceive it.
“Now when that which is Perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” But when doth it come? I say, when as much as may be, it is known, felt and tasted of the soul. For the lack lieth altogether in us, and not in it. In like manner the sun lighteth the whole world, and is as near to one as another, yet a blind man seeth it not; but the fault thereof lieth in the blind man, not in the sun. And like as the sun may not hide its brightness, but must give light unto the earth (for heaven indeed draweth its light and heat from another fountain), so also God, who is the highest Good, willeth not to hide Himself from any, wheresoever He findeth a devout soul, that is thoroughly purified from all creatures. For in what measure we put off the creature, in the same measure are we able to put on the Creator; neither more nor less. For if mine eye is to see anything, it must be single, or else be purified from all other things; and where heat and light enter in, cold and darkness must needs depart; it cannot be otherwise.
But one might say, “Now since the Perfect cannot be known nor apprehended of any creature, but the soul is a creature, how can it be known by the soul?” Answer: This is why we say, “by the soul as a creature.” We mean it is impossible to the creature in virtue of its creature-nature and qualities, that by which it saith “I” and “myself.” For in whatsoever creature the Perfect shall be known, therein creature-nature, qualities, the I, the Self and the like, must all be lost and done away. This is the meaning of that saying of St. Paul: “When that which is perfect is come” (that is, when it is known), “then that which is in part” (to wit, creature-nature, qualities, the I, the Self, the Mine) will be despised and counted for nought. So long as we think much of these things, cleave to them with love, joy, pleasure or desire, so long remaineth the Perfect unknown to us.
But it might further be said, “Thou sayest, beside the Perfect there is no Substance, yet sayest again that somewhat floweth out from it: now is not that which hath flowed out from it, something beside it.” Answer: This is why we say, beside it, or without it, there is no true Substance. That which hath flowed forth from it, is no true Substance, and hath no Substance except in the Perfect, but is an accident, or a brightness, or a visible appearance, which is no Substance, and hath no Substance except in the fire whence the brightness flowed forth, such as the sun or a candle.
[6] 1 Cor. 13:10.
(Underline is mine)

I apologize for the long quote. It is the entire first chapter of the Theologia Germanica from which Oriel36 has quoted. From what I can understand, it is saying that imperfect man can be deified into the perfect once the imperfect is done away with. But I don’t think that this is what is meant when scripture says “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” or when Jesus prays in John that we all be “one” just as He is one in the Father. We may be IN God but we are not God. Please correct me if you think my understanding is wrong.

If the TG is based on a flawed foundation then the whole structure falls.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
There is no Holy Spirit to pray to? Where is this found in any of the writings of the Fathers, Creeds or Councils?

Peace
This is complete insincerity for I have made the distinction between what is acceptable for those who have not known conversion into the Holy Spirit as a gift from God and those who participate within the community of Christians through geographic or cultural influences which makes them Christian.

Perhaps Fergal in another thread is correct and that a tangle emerges when attempting to express a Spiritual insight into a written form appreceated by reason.You otoh,behave like the Alogi and reduce those conceptions of the Trinity to their basest form and accept nothing else.

" Behold, ye must look narrowly into this matter. There are two kinds of Light; the one is true and the other is false. The true light is that Eternal Light which is God; or else it is a created light, but yet divine, which is called grace. And these are both the true Light. So is the false light Nature or of Nature. But why is the first true, and the second false? This we can better perceive than say or write. To God, as Godhead, appertain neither will, nor knowledge, nor manifestation, nor anything that we can name, or say, or conceive. But to God as God,[39] it belongeth to express Himself, and know and love Himself, and to reveal Himself to Himself; and all this without any creature. And all this resteth in God as a substance but not as a working, so long as there is no creature. And out of this expressing and revealing of Himself unto Himself, ariseth the distinction of Persons. But when God as God is made man, or where God dwelleth in a godly man, or one who is “made a partaker of the divine nature,” in such a man somewhat appertaineth unto God which is His own, and belongeth to Him only and not to the creature. And without the creature, this would lie in His own Self as a Substance or well-spring, but would not be manifested or wrought out into deeds. Now God will have it to be exercised and clothed in a form, for it is there only to be wrought out and executed. What else is it for? Shall it lie idle? What then would it profit? As good were it that it had never been; nay better, for what is of no use existeth in vain, and that is abhorred by God and Nature. However God will have it wrought out, and this cannot come to pass (which it ought to do) without the creature. Nay, if there ought not to be, and were not this and that – works, and a world full of real things, and the like, – what were God Himself, and what had He to do, and whose God would He be? Here we must turn and stop, or we might follow this matter and grope along until we knew not where we were, nor how we should find our way out again. "

ccel.org/t/theo_ger/theologia37.htm

Fergal shouild enjoy the last line for he said much the same thing as the Theologia.
 
40.png
catholic2:
(Underline is mine)

I apologize for the long quote. It is the entire first chapter of the Theologia Germanica from which Oriel36 has quoted. From what I can understand, it is saying that imperfect man can be deified into the perfect once the imperfect is done away with. But I don’t think that this is what is meant when scripture says “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” or when Jesus prays in John that we all be “one” just as He is one in the Father. We may be IN God but we are not God. Please correct me if you think my understanding is wrong.

If the TG is based on a flawed foundation then the whole structure falls.
"The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, "
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm

Leave the door open for NOT mixing the Johannine Word with the remaining texts of the Bible as you have done in your reply .
 
oriel36 said:
"The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, "
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm

Leave the door open for NOT mixing the Johannine Word with the remaining texts of the Bible as you have done in your reply .

Good comeback but not an honest one. Jesus was using sarcasm on those people who wanted to stone Him. I leave it to the Bible footnotes to explain the “gods” your quotation, and I leave the Theologia Germanica in the depths of the ocean of abstruse prose where it does not harm anyone.

Incidentally I admire the way you can turn a phrase, yet it is a challenging style and intimidating prose to those who can be intimidated.

Here’s my definition of the two kinds of Christians as you have been stating using John 11:25-26.
Those who are for the Lord and love Him, AND those who love Him and are for Him.
I don’t see any other kind.

Just one more related thing. You included “Catholic” in your definition of denomination. But the Catholic Church is not a denomination. You should get out of your denomination and come back to the Church.
 
I think you’re trying to bait your non-Catholic brothers and sisters into an argument and there’s nothing Christian about that kind of attitude. Shame on you. :tsktsk:
 
There’s alot of ‘me too’ argumentation here, but very little proof.

Two observations / recommendations:
  1. If you have incontrovertible proof of early church regard for the See of Rome / Chair of Peter - then let’s ‘see it’. Citations please.
    1a) If ‘we’ regard Tradition of the Church Father’s as valid as Scripture, then to whom do we turn for ‘tiebreakers’?
Jerome for example argued against the Primacy of Rome:
“It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital.** Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.** Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?” - Jerome (Letter 146:1-2)

The First Vatican Council, under the absolute monarchy of Pope Pius IX, said that the capital outweighs the world. Jerome said that the world outweighs its capital.
  1. If you want Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut why not solicit it on a Protestant Forum like TheologyWeb? theologyweb.com/
 
40.png
mercygate:
I’m another victim of studying the Roman period at a secular university, where I encountered the ECFs without any sectarian bias. I was Protestant at the time. I remember sitting in the library reading Irenaeus and feeing a chill run through my bones reading so much that pointed to the historical continuity of the Church and realizing that the Catholic Church today is the Church Irenaeus was defending. Before the Great Schism. Before the Protestant revolt. So the word “catholic” didn’t have the charged meaning it has today.

Another thing that struck me like thunder at the time was the fact that the Church gave us the Scriptures. I had never so much as given it a moment’s thought. The Bible was just “there.”

Lately I have been having thoughts about that as well. Although the New Testament manuscripts carry more credibility than any other manuscripts of the time, there are still a lot of textual variations in what we have received. If the Scriptures were intended as the sole rule of faith, then shouldn’t there be a clear, single text?
Hi! Could you clarify what you mean by textual variations?
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Here are a few of the books I used.

Writings of the Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers, Ed. by J.B. Lightfoot.
Early Christian Fathers, Ed. by Cyril C. RIchardson.
The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1-3 Ed. William A. Jurgens.
Christology of the Later Fathers, Ed. Edward R. Hardy.
Eusebious: The History of the Church.
A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Ed. David W. Bercot.

History of the Church

The Christian Fathers, by Maurice Wiles.
The Doctors of the Church, by Bernard McGinn.
Doctrine and Practices in the Early Church, by Stuart G. Hall.
Church History, John C. Dwyer.
Christians as the Romans saw Them, Robert L. Wilken.
Hidden Gospels, by Philip Jerkins.
The Medieval Church, by Carl A. Volz.
Faith in the Medieval World, by G.R. Evans.

Catholic Apologetics

Crossing the Tiber, by Stephen K. Ray.
Apologia Pro Vita Sua, By John Henry Newman.
Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical, by Fr. John R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy.
Controversies, Ed. Karl Keating.

Hope this helps.

Peace
Thanks for the list. Am I correct in saying that at least 2/3s of the list is from the Catholic point of view? Have you read The Rise of Christianity by W H C Frend? An historian/scholar for The History Channel recommends it as a great overview.
 
Daisy Duck:
I think you’re trying to bait your non-Catholic brothers and sisters into an argument and there’s nothing Christian about that kind of attitude. Shame on you. :tsktsk:
If I have, please provide proof.

Peace
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
Thanks for the list. Am I correct in saying that at least 2/3s of the list is from the Catholic point of view? Have you read The Rise of Christianity by W H C Frend? An historian/scholar for The History Channel recommends it as a great overview.
I only know of 2 or 3 that are Catholic (aside from the writings of the early Fathers).

I will look into that book.

Peace
 
40.png
EA_Man:
There’s alot of ‘me too’ argumentation here, but very little proof.

Two observations / recommendations:
  1. If you have incontrovertible proof of early church regard for the See of Rome / Chair of Peter - then let’s ‘see it’. Citations please.
    1a) If ‘we’ regard Tradition of the Church Father’s as valid as Scripture, then to whom do we turn for ‘tiebreakers’?
Jerome for example argued against the Primacy of Rome:
“It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital.** Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.** Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?” - Jerome (Letter 146:1-2)

The First Vatican Council, under the absolute monarchy of Pope Pius IX, said that the capital outweighs the world. Jerome said that the world outweighs its capital.
  1. If you want Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut why not solicit it on a Protestant Forum like TheologyWeb? theologyweb.com/
We don’t regard the Tradition of the Fathers as vaid as Scripture, we see Tradition as a form of God’s word just like Scripture.

God gave us His word in two forms, written and oral.

Peace
 
first of all let me just say i am not anti-catholic in anyway i belive we are all christians and i wish we had more unity between catholics and protestants, but in response to the history of the church:
the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was not officially est. until after pope leo in 450. Jesus did not apoint Peter as the first pope of the Roman Catholic church. He said that he would build his church apon Peter. After Christ Ther was a Universal or “catholic” christian church. This was not the Roman Catholic Church as it was after pope Leo. All the church dogma’s that many protestants have problems with were’t created until after this time so the Christian church before this wasn’t much different than some protestant churches today (take for example the day of pentacost in acts). Again I am not saying this to discredit the Catholic church The first christian church did eventually turn into the Roman Catholic church and played a major role in christainiry for anther mellinium but many catholics think that they were the first and only true christian church and this simply is not true there was not even a papacy until Leo he then said that the first pope was peter and it went from there. After peter they started having bishops of rome wich the church now considers to be the Popes before Leo. Anyways sorry this is long again i am in no way trying to put down the Catholic church just trying to clear some things up.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
We don’t regard the Tradition of the Fathers as vaid as Scripture, we see Tradition as a form of God’s word just like Scripture.

God gave us His word in two forms, written and oral.

Peace
What?!?

You don’t regard Tradition as valid as Scripture except that it is “just like Scripture”?

Please explain, as that seems like a distinction without a difference.
 
The Catholic side has been criticized to the nth degree. I’d like to see what kind of evidence the protestants have that they have some root in early christianity other then through the Catholic Church.
Hooo boy! It never ceases to amaze me the ability of people on this board to write extremely long posts filled with very large words and historical references - it is probably my own fault of wanting to oversimplify everything. I commend you who are scholarly and you who are historically inclined but isn’t there just a simple answer?

Protestants began with Protestant reformation. Any Protestant, if they really wanted to, could trace the roots of their denomination back to that, and ultimately to the Catholic Church.

I realize that there are those who maintain that the early church was Protestant, that Protestant denominations come much closer to modeling the early church than the Catholic Church does. It’s an interesting theory that I will investigate one day.

I suppose I’m going to be flamed for being so simple and I’ll be told to go to my homework. I’m trying. I’m reading by first history of the Catholic Church book. Triumph: the power and the glory of the catholic church.

Good day to you complicated people. 😉
 
40.png
oriel36:
The Holy Spirit is not an external entity,the Holy Spirit is that Intuitive faculty which sorts out . . . . .
Actually, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity!

God Bless.
 
40.png
EA_Man:
What?!?

You don’t regard Tradition as valid as Scripture except that it is “just like Scripture”?

Please explain, as that seems like a distinction without a difference.
I never said Tradition was not as valid as Scripture. I said Catholic’s don’t regard “the Traditions of the Fathers” as valid as Scripture.

Traditon as I mean it is God’s word handed down in oral form, just as Scripture is God’s word handed down in written form.

You can also call Tradition and Scripture the of deposit of faith.

Peace
 
40.png
EN2:
first of all let me just say i am not anti-catholic in anyway i belive we are all christians and i wish we had more unity between catholics and protestants, but in response to the history of the church:
the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was not officially est. until after pope leo in 450. Jesus did not apoint Peter as the first pope of the Roman Catholic church. He said that he would build his church apon Peter. After Christ Ther was a Universal or “catholic” christian church. This was not the Roman Catholic Church as it was after pope Leo. All the church dogma’s that many protestants have problems with were’t created until after this time so the Christian church before this wasn’t much different than some protestant churches today (take for example the day of pentacost in acts). Again I am not saying this to discredit the Catholic church The first christian church did eventually turn into the Roman Catholic church and played a major role in christainiry for anther mellinium but many catholics think that they were the first and only true christian church and this simply is not true there was not even a papacy until Leo he then said that the first pope was peter and it went from there. After peter they started having bishops of rome wich the church now considers to be the Popes before Leo. Anyways sorry this is long again i am in no way trying to put down the Catholic church just trying to clear some things up.
I wold say ‘amen’ to greater unity among Christians EN2 and I think discussing our differences is a good thing so long as it doesn’t lead to argumentation. I think you will find that many of us who view and use these forums will disagree with your opinion regarding Jesus, St. Peter, and the Papacy. St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his book *Against Heresies *lists the early successors of Peter in Book III Ch.3 - this dates from about 189 AD. I believe the term “Roman” when refering to the Catholic Church was initiated by Anglicans in the 16th century. As for dogma, Catholics, or Roman Catholics if you wish, regard it as developing from the initial deposit of faith given the Church by Christ. John Henry Cardinal Newman deals with this at length in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
I never said Tradition was not as valid as Scripture. I said Catholic’s don’t regard “the Traditions of the Fathers” as valid as Scripture.

Traditon as I mean it is God’s word handed down in oral form, just as Scripture is God’s word handed down in written form.

You can also call Tradition and Scripture the deposit of faith.

Peace
Horrible typo
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
This is a good question. However, because you have not gotten an answer to your question, you have to assume that there is not an answer due to the answer NOT existing. Therefore, YOU have to list an assessment of Catholic church history along with evidence that backs up THAT assessment. This paints a picture of “true” history. No help from others and no links or referrals. Without a detailed review from your own point of view, there are two possibilities. You do not know the history of your faith or the history you want to exist isn’t there. In either case, someone, on either side, is assuming something is there that isn’t or more informed education in Christianity is needed. Let’s here from you!
We know our history, how many more volumes can we read? We are purplexed that protestants to this day, so far removed from the reformation, won’t give the historical, welcoming, beautiful Church a look-see. How many saints, encyclicals, scripture and so forth can we read…that all converge…and not want this truth for all of our separated brethren? Dennis asks the unanswerable, why? because people have hardened their hearts to what is right in front of them. We love you and only want the fulness of it all for you.Like our new pope said …adult faith, not the whims of your own selves.(paraphrase)

Peace and love
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top