M
MarysLurker
Guest
Hence a protest. But fighting over the dictionary is silly. Let’s stop.
Last edited:
How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?
- Status
T
TULIPed
Guest
Amen to that.
S
steve-b
Guest
Now THAT is a thin argumentsteve-b:
Resorting to the “tens of thousands “ is such a thin argument, but it makes my point.
First, you quote a Catholic source to describe a teaching that is not Catholic, sort of like referring to @ReadTheBible to describe a teaching that is Catholic.
Second, that same Catholic source you referenced refers to Protestant in the singular, and you defend it by calling out the “tens of thousands”.
Third, it is precisely because Protestant is not and never has been a single communion that the article you site is false, but since you regularly credit/blame Luther for all teachings held by said “tens of thousands” communions (even though virtually none are variants from Lutheranism) let’s credit Luther with sola scriptura. Luther did not teach sola scriptura as a rejection of Tradition
- Protestantism is a massive number of divisions. No one can argue against that
- The poster you refer to is constantly composing his own story line
- Sola scriptura by definition doesn’t accept Tradition. Now if you want to critiize some point in this article please make your point specifically
There’s the false assumption that Protestantism is or was a monolith that divided.
As are some of the things said by Catholic apologists. Using a Catholic source as you did is no different than that poster.
Back to the false narrative. So, the real definition from a Lutheran source.
Effectively, the final norm. The norm that norms all other norms but is not normed.
But it is not an exclusion of other norms.
Not a rejection of Tradition mentioned. In fact, it identifies the important role for Tradition.
And here, a pledge to the creeds! A pledge to them! Not a rejection.
http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php
From your article:
This statement is factually false.
S
steve-b
Guest
Why do you think I’m referring to Protestantism as a monolith that divided.steve-b:
There’s the false assumption that Protestantism is or was a monolith that divided.
Each Protestant sect is its own individual entity and division… Originally the beginners who started their own deal, all divided from the Catholic Church. Then it became whoever wanted to start his or her own “church” they just did it on their own. THAT is still Division / dissension διχοστασίαι, Open the link.
For the other poster who doesn’t open links, here’s the definition. division, dissension, standing apart , which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions.
BTW, That same Greek word is used in both the following passages Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21. One could ask, Why is division a grave (mortal) sin, as all the sins mentioned by Paul in those verses? Note the consequences mentioned? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW they go to hell if/when they die in that sin. That is a direct quote from scripture. IOW avoid that sin at all cost as one should avoid any mortal sin. It’s a salvation issue.
I’ll get to the rest when I get the time
Last edited:
The term Protestantism
All division is wrong. All parties involved, including the Bishop of Rome, are responsible for it. (The link won’t open).
We’re all in trouble, then, aren’t we?
Unless one believes in grace and confession and Absolution.
Also,
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."272
S
steve-b
Guest
What term pleases you.steve-b:
The term Protestantism
I made 2 corrections
A cross out as you can see, and I fixed the link
No. Not everyone is in that sin of division.
Again, one needs valid sacraments, AND confession and absolution do no good when one plans to stay their sin
Ignorance is NOT a permanent get outta jail free card. Paragraph 272 only works until that person is shown their error.
Consider (emphasis mine)
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Re: “complete consent” it’s no mystery. It amounts to making a personal choice. That’s it. No big deal.
I would just say in general, People who try and game the system only game themselves.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
No different?
On the contrary. There is a huge difference. The Catholic Church , instituted by Jesus, has all of Jesus promises. It has 2000 years of apostolic succession. Jesus said, not me, that Not even the gates of hell will prevail against His Church that He builds on Peter and those in complete union with Peter.
The poster can’t even begin to claim that
Back to the false narrative. So, the real definition from a Lutheran source.
[/QUOTE]
That makes my point.
There ya go. Luther etc etc etc and anyone who left Our Lord’s Church to create their own innovation.
This is what happens when there is a disconnect from actual Tradition.
Did any apostle give a table of contents as to what writings belongs in the NT? The answer is NO
So how do YOU know what’s even supposed to be in the bible? How do you know that what’s there is even correct? You depend on Catholic Church Tradition.
In that day, the apostles ergo the Catholic Church had to endure Gnostics, heretics of that day. Just like the Catholic Church has had to endure many historical heresies. And it won’t end till Jesus calls it. In the mean time, people in Heresy as Paul said if they don’t change, are self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος
Re: creeds
a creed is to be a lived reality. A said creed is like a said faith. It’s dead. It won’t hold up for any one
Last edited:
When speaking of practice and doctrine, the names of specific communions.
lolI made 2 corrections
You need to tell me how to do the strike through, or in this instance, undo it.
I contend that the error is the innovation of universal jurisdiction, but I don’t believe that fact in and of itself would be the cause of anyone’s condemnation.
Telling other people what they believe, particularly when the description is false is, at best, uncharitable.
S
steve-b
Guest
2 thoughts come to mind
- Isn’t “communions” a bit untenable given that there are over 40,000 separate divisions that you would call communions?
- Doesn’t that completely screw up the whole idea of “communion” in the way communion is used? In the vernacular, as a Catholic, Communion also = the Eucharist which = union with Jesus body blood soul and divinity, AND ALSO the unity of the community receiving the Eucharist. That also requires valid ordination. And since Jesus instituted ONE Church, ALL are to be in complete union with it. Without that there is no communion
Again 2 points come to mind
- When Jesus gave Peter (Rock) the keys and said to him, He would build His Church on Peter, what part of the Church is Jesus NOT allowing Peter to be in charge of?
- When Jesus said to Peter alone, tend/shepherd/rule ποίμαινε my sheep, what sheep does Jesus exclude from Peter? Especially when Jesus prayer is
Now you can argue against that all you want, but it won’t change a thing.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
I go by what people write. He told me what he believes in writing, in his posts.steve-b:
Telling other people what they believe, particularly when the description is false is, at best, uncharitable.
Last edited:
Ah, back to the false representation of Protestants being one large but divided monolith.
I absolutely agree. Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others have valid ordinations. Now, Catholics are obliged to disagree. That’s okay. It would be nice if you guys did recognize our orders, but that’s all it would be, nice. Our orders are valid regardless.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Not necessarily. Anglican orders going back to the Tudor times are invalid but some Anglican clergy have acquired valid (but illicit) orders from Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops. Some Lutheran clergy may as well. It’s a case by case issue.
S
steve-b
Guest
Should I just say “heretical sects”?steve-b:
Ah, back to the false representation of Protestants being one large but dividedmonolith
If that was the case, Lutheran and Anglican clergy converting to the Catholic Church and wanting to be part of the Catholic Church clergy, wouldn’t need to be ordained
Jon,
It’s all about authority that Jesus established and obedience to that authority. Not what one presumes for themselves who are opposed to the authority Jesus established.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Any particular reason for the 40,000 figure?
G
GKMotley
Guest
“Anglican orders going back to the Tudor times are invalid but some Anglican clergy have acquired valid (but illicit) orders from Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops. Some Lutheran clergy may as well. It’s a case by case issue.”
Apostolicae curae being a very long standing hobby of mine (as steve-b can attest:it is a sad, lengthy and fascinating subject), I’d be the last to suggest that this is not what all RC should affirm (indeed, I’m often the first to state the opposite). Anglicans, not being subject to Leo XIII’s statement on the subject, have another view of the matter (and the intent and the form).
But, passing over the issue of the possible participation of the Orthodox in some cases, the implication of the Dutch Touch (whatever the RCC might say on it) is a little different.
In 1932, following the Agreement of Bonn, Anglicans and OC-Utrecht, entered into a full communion (a similar agreement was made with the Polish National Catholic Church in 1946). Among other things, this permitted joint consecrations with both OC and Anglican bishops consecrating the others episcopacy. Note that this does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but of consecrating, jointly, Anglican/OC or PNCC bishops. Logically, since bishops with valid but illicit orders (as the RCC judges the OCs/PNCC to have been) convey valid but illicit orders (assuming all other points being sacramentally valid - see Ott, p. 458), this would suggest that the OCs lines were infused into Anglicanism, and were propagated as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions. This is not a suggestion that the Dutch Touch resolved the issue that Leo had spoken on, in the Anglicans favor, but it does mean that the orders derived from the joint episcopal consecrations, spread over the following 87 years (to which the agreement with the PNCC added, starting in 1946) were spread widely throughout the Anglican world, as the relevant Anglican bishops went about their own episcopal duties, in turn. It isn’t a case by case issue.
My late rector was ordained by an Episcopal bishop who was himself consecrated by one jointly consecrated by PNCC prelates. It would be hard, after these years, to find Anglican clergy without those lines, somewhere in the past.
It is, as I said, a long, sad, and complicated story, involving history, theology, personalities, and politics. On the subject, all faithful RCs should affirm that Anglican orders are null and void, in general.
Apostolicae curae being a very long standing hobby of mine (as steve-b can attest:it is a sad, lengthy and fascinating subject), I’d be the last to suggest that this is not what all RC should affirm (indeed, I’m often the first to state the opposite). Anglicans, not being subject to Leo XIII’s statement on the subject, have another view of the matter (and the intent and the form).
But, passing over the issue of the possible participation of the Orthodox in some cases, the implication of the Dutch Touch (whatever the RCC might say on it) is a little different.
In 1932, following the Agreement of Bonn, Anglicans and OC-Utrecht, entered into a full communion (a similar agreement was made with the Polish National Catholic Church in 1946). Among other things, this permitted joint consecrations with both OC and Anglican bishops consecrating the others episcopacy. Note that this does not involve OC bishops ordaining Anglican priests, but of consecrating, jointly, Anglican/OC or PNCC bishops. Logically, since bishops with valid but illicit orders (as the RCC judges the OCs/PNCC to have been) convey valid but illicit orders (assuming all other points being sacramentally valid - see Ott, p. 458), this would suggest that the OCs lines were infused into Anglicanism, and were propagated as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions. This is not a suggestion that the Dutch Touch resolved the issue that Leo had spoken on, in the Anglicans favor, but it does mean that the orders derived from the joint episcopal consecrations, spread over the following 87 years (to which the agreement with the PNCC added, starting in 1946) were spread widely throughout the Anglican world, as the relevant Anglican bishops went about their own episcopal duties, in turn. It isn’t a case by case issue.
My late rector was ordained by an Episcopal bishop who was himself consecrated by one jointly consecrated by PNCC prelates. It would be hard, after these years, to find Anglican clergy without those lines, somewhere in the past.
It is, as I said, a long, sad, and complicated story, involving history, theology, personalities, and politics. On the subject, all faithful RCs should affirm that Anglican orders are null and void, in general.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Just taking 3 classifications of Protestantsteve-b:
Any particular reason for the 40,000 figure?
Nondenominational evangelical
Nondenominational fundamentalist
Nondenominational charismatic
Would you say that within each classification, every individual church within that classification, is its own entity responsible for itself with it’s own authority and answers to only itself?
Then there is at least 50 different classifications of different Baptists.
And it goes on and on and on.
How would you number the divisions?
G
GKMotley
Guest
I have no idea at all.Just curious if there was something that directly lead to your figure. Me, I’d not be surprised if it was (and it will absolutely depend on how you define whatever you are counting) 50,000. Or any other number. My usual response to “How many denominations?” is “Either a lot, or a lot more than that”.
S
steve-b
Guest
Let’s look at this from the Catholic Church position wanting to somehow solve this mess of all the divisions.
Who does the Catholic Church go to, to talk about reunification of all of Protestantism when Every entity is their own entity and speaks for themselves? NO ONE speaks for all in Protestantism.
Even the Orthodox aren’t one. They are all individual Churches. The Russians who make up 60%+ of Orthodoxy went into schism with all who are in union with Constantinople.
Jim, it’s all about going back to authority that Jesus established, in His Church, and all the people who have / had authority issues with that authority.
- Status