M
mcq72
Guest
Again, so said the reformers?
How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Actually, we are. Fact you can find some exegesis is like writing a story about case in court- it might be true, it might be not. You can hardly call exegesis a proof, because it is subject to our own fallible comprehension. John taught about pre-existence of Jesus? Well that exegesis is correct and all, but I doubt it’s the only one. There is a passage in the Bible about graven images (and that tends to have two rivaling interpretations too), there is passage about universal priesthood, about Peter being given keys and about Apostles only being given power to bind and loose (not mentioning keys explicitly). There are numerous interpretations to those verses, and none of them can be disproved by anything except authority, because even logic is sometimes too subjective.
Right. Who speaks for Christ currently then? After all, many false prophets were sent- how do we distinguish? It would be foolish to think Satan is not trying to trick us all and we are perfectly able to discern truth from lies.
No, I assume there is no way to distinguish for sure, unless there’s Papacy-like system.
Nicene Creed professes faith in One Church, not multiple. Augustine said heretics are outside Church, Schismatics are outside Church (hence the word, schism) and therefore we believe that those outside visible communion are very likely outside of Church. If no denomination got everything right then it’s over, Holy Spirit failed to lead us… or perhaps he played jokes with us and let us all have parts of truth (called indifferentism, heresy for clear reasons) or there is no absolute truth (called relativism, heresy for clear reasons).
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Imagine this quote a bit secularized… “it should make us question whether all mathematical formulas should be defined clearly and not left to open interpretation”. If you’ve done that with mathematical formulas, you get chaos, wrong interpretations, you get wrong conclusions and ultimately people might screw up things that are very important in other fields such as architecture of chemistry, or whatever else. Now with theology, we don’t risk a building falling down nor do we risk adding too much of substance and creating explosion- we just risk our souls and sovereignty of objective Truth. We risk heresies crippling to the Church. One small heresy leads to another, another and soon it gets dangerous. Why else would Truth exist if not to be revealed? Why would God want to hide those things from us? Trinity was not a thing in Old Testament- yet Apostles had authority to define it because it was true. Transubstantiation was not a dogma in Early Church (but widely held)- yet Successors to Apostles had authority to define it because it was true. Easy Concept
D
Darryl_B
Guest
This thread seems to have become a conglomeration of all contemporary protestant complaint, but the modern protestant has little in common with the so called “reformers” let alone the 1500 years before that.
Protestantism is continually reinventing itself.
Protestantism is continually reinventing itself.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
But the only thing this evolving protestant beast knows for certain is that it cannot ever go back.
It is time for Renaissance.
It is time for Renaissance.
That’s an accusation without a source, against a group that doesn’t really exist.
There is no such thing as Protestantism, in terms of practice and doctrine. There are communions/traditions/denominations that are artificially grouped together as “Protestant”.
As someone raised Lutheran, you’re right in that I have little in common with Zwingli or Calvin. Why should I? The Lutheran reformers had little in common with them.
I do have a lot in common with the Lutheran reformers, however, and those who continued the tradition later, such as Chemnitz and Gerhard.
This is my least favorite Catholic polemic.
It amounts to blaming the Holy Spirit for our sin.
I had lots of students as a teacher over the years who tried hard and learned. I had some who tried very hard and still struggled. Then there were the few who just didn’t try.
The Spirit guides all of us. Some don’t listen and others try their best. The Catholic Catechism says the Spirit uses our churches and “communities “ to guide. The division is from our sin, not from the Spirit.
Last edited:
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Jon
You love being unique, I loved being that uniqueness too, but it gets to become a little bit too much an ends to itself.
I am this unique flavour of Christian.
Why do/did we do that?
You love being unique, I loved being that uniqueness too, but it gets to become a little bit too much an ends to itself.
I am this unique flavour of Christian.
Why do/did we do that?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
No, but God could preserve Prophets as infallible, so why would he not do the same for the Church? To motivate the students is also teacher’s job, and I fully believe Holy Spirit has the power to preserve doctrine in the Church uncorrupted.
But which part of the Church? At the time of the a Great Schism through today, one patriarch has claimed supremacy. None of the others agree.JonNC:
No, but God could preserve Prophets as infallible, so why would he not do the same for the Church? To motivate the students is also teacher’s job, and I fully believe Holy Spirit has the power to preserve doctrine in the Church uncorrupted.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Church has no parts, Church is Church. Which part of body is “you”? Same concept- you could argue it’s brain but at the same time it isn’t just the brain that you consist of. Church is based on the Pope but it is not just the Pope that is the Church. “None of others agree”? Maronite Patriarch (original line of Antioch btw) does agree- so do multiple others, Melkite Patriarch (non-original line of Antioch I guess but still Patriarch), Chaldean Patriarch, multiple Latin Patriarchs and I perhaps missed out on a few of Eastern Catholic Patriarchs as well. How is that “none of others” ?
You’re denying the reality of the visible Church. Yes, there is but one Church, the community of believers participating in Word and Sacrament, established by Christ Himself at Pentecost, of which we are both members. But human sin has us divided.
False. Church is based on the institution of Christ, and it exists where there is Word and Sacrament.
How many of the great patriarchate sat the time sided with the Roman See? Constantinople? Regardless, the fact is the patriarchs are not in agreement.
W
whatistrue
Guest
That is close to what I mean. The saints are venerated, not the actual statues; the statues are just sort of a focus point. Like talking to a picture of a beloved relative.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I can’t speak for @steve-b, but if I wanted to know what Lutherans believed and why, I would be remiss to ignore a source that explains it from the Lutheran perspective. Similarly, when I want to know what Catholics believe about something, I go to a Catholic source. From there, I can compare sources, and even add other sources, and then make my own decisions.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Are we all members of same Church with same Creed or are we divided? I take it that Christ’s body can’t be divided, nor can Holy Spirit be divided, hence Church can not be divided. Church is infallible, hence Church can not contradict Herself. Regardless, let’s drop membership issue and speak about doctrine- where does doctrine of the Church lie? Which denomination has the doctrine right? Based on it’s own interpretation or any other serious claim to authority?
That is your definition, but that does not stem from the Bible. After all, New Testament was not yet in effect during Apostolic times and Old Testament was followed by Jews- but they were not considered part of Church. Maronites accepted all 21 Catholic Ecumenical Councils hence they are not local of “one Patriarchate” when two legitimate lines accepted them either way. Miaphysites also only consider Triarchy to be valid (Petrine Sees: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) and if we go by their definition (last time they were in Church was this, so basically last time “Church was unified” this was the case) then Rome and Antioch both remained together while Alexandria left. Unified Church polemic through Pentarchy makes no sense anyway, as Pentarchy is much later construct than Triarchy was.
Ugh if you mean Pentarchy, let’s see
Antioch:
a) Greeks- not original line, appointed by Emperor, rejected Michael Cerulariuses excommunications towards Latin Practices and remained in dual communion.
b) Maronites- original line, remained in communion with Rome. Chose Rome over Constantinople after they resumed contact with Christian world.
Alexandria:
a) Miaphysites- in Schism, did not accept Chalcedon
b) Greek- appointed by Emperor, remained in dual communion and commemorated Pope in Liturgies up to 1300s at least
Jerusalem:
Greek- appointed by Emperor, chose to side with Constantinople.
I say it’s 2:2 based on original Patriarchates- moreover, Maronites were not Latins neither Greeks, neither did they have any prior political concerns or contact with Christians of that age before they chose Rome and sided with Pope. Also Latin Patriarchates already existed in Italy and sided with Rome (Aquilea, Grado). Moreover, Constantinople itself did not know they are in Schism with Papacy years after- they had to check archives when asked why is Pope missing from their diptychs.
Similar question; Why is Council of Chalcedon Ecumenical? Alexandria rejected it. Why is council of Ephesus Ecumenical? Nestorians rejected it. What is the clear definition for confused faithful to always go by?
Last edited:
Yes. We all preach Christ crucified. We are all baptized into His Church. Many of us confess the same creeds.
And, sadly, we are divided by sin.
Why are you under the misconception that differences in beliefs assume someone is lying? A lie, by definition, is an intent to deceive. Do you believe I am trying to deceive you? I don’t believe that of you.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
No, where does it “lie” as in “lay”, not deceive. That’s what I meant, sorry for confusion. I do not think you are deceiving me, I think you are very sincere in everything you say.
Many of us confess same creeds, but what defines who is or is not in the Church? Is it the Creed?
Gotcha. I appreciate the explanation because so often I see apologetics framed that way. Progress cannot be made without respect.
From the Didache:
Baptism was the early Church’s baseline, ISTM.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Might have been case until heretics adopted baptism (or even after, I guess) but that also makes Ecumenical Councils pretty complicated because you said that council is Ecumenical only if accepted by entire Church- yet not entire group consisting of baptized people accepted Nicea (hence, Patriarchates are not valid, hence none of this is valid either). I understand where you are coming from for definition of Church (which I agree with partially- I believe every baptized person is somehow part of the Church yet not always in full communion with it), but it makes definition of Ecumenical Councils and infallibility of Church pretty hazy.
C
chrisjb
Guest
A valid baptism which is performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy spirit (which most protestant denominations do) removes the stain of original sin and all prior sins to baptism but doesn’t erase sins that follow the baptism. Therefore it is but one component of salvation. A baptism is not inherently salvific in and of itself (unless performed immediately prior to death before any new mortal sins are committed.)
- Status