I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[CMatt25]

For that matter, so is your church. There is no church, pastor or pope who knows all things perfectly at all times.

Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

Now if my church was to come up with some doctrine…say, for instance, “purgatory”? I would know immediately they were in error. I know this because God is clear that the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all the sins of those He came to save. He in fact removes these sins “as far as the east is from the west” so that not even the so-called “temporal” effects are imputed to me. Christ “…is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,…”(Heb 7:25).

Hi Kelman, as I plod along on my own lifetime journey of faith, you truly seem like someone who could answer something for me since you speak here of churches coming up with doctrine. Honestly with my background I’m not overly versed in the details of this so I sincerely ask this. Do Protestants believe the Catholic Church was correct on doctrine for the first 1500 yrs? And if not, why did it take so long for reformation? Thanks and God bless!

 

[David_Castlen]

Gregg you’re not from O’boro are you?

 

[Portrait]

Thanks, I appreciate the welcome.

Churches which profess and actually practice sola Scriptura(unfortunately not as many as one would hope for) are considerably united in their theology.

I"m not going to pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, however, when exercised in a humble faithful manner it always leads to an adequate(albeit not perfect) knowledge of the essential truths.

Otoh, surely you can understand that we feel the same with regard to the RCC?.. that much of what it presents to the world is not a part of God’s economy.

I fully appreciate that God gave His Word to the universal church, after all, the Apostles and their contemporaries were the first Christians. Interestingly, we have Eusebius’ account in Ecclesiastical History 3.24.7 that it was John the Revelator who canonized the four Gospels – he “welcomed” and “received” the three previous Gospels and “testified to their truth”.

We don’t find God telling us that the church - any church - is infallible and cannot teach error. We need only look to the NT and history to see this is true.

I suggest that this is, in fact, a “biased Catholic opinion” because we do not have God informing us of a universal jurisdictional authority.

As I mentioned above, churches who not only profess but actually practice sola Scriptura are considerably in agreement.

The RCC is not the only church to speak about some of these issues and how Scripture might be applied to them. Still, God has given us our own consciences and we’re not to allow others to bind them where Scripture does not speak.

God has been clear to define only His written Word as inspired. He says this of nothing else. If something other than Scripture was inspired, one would think God would have mentioned that fact, however, He did not.

We assert that the Bible alone is sufficient because God say it is – the Bible is sufficient to bring men to faith, to salvation, to “perfect” them. When read in its context we see Paul is speaking about the Gospel – that he was made a minister of it(verse 7). Paul is saying that all men, both Jew and Gentile are now brought together in one “fellowship” – one church(verse 9) where can be observed the magnificence of God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus which was of great interest to the angels(verse 10).

We find no suggestion in the Bible that a church can infallibly interpret Scripture. Of what is the church a pillar to?..what is the church to uphold?..the Bible which is the Truth …sadly not all churches do.

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above and apologies for the delay in replying, but I have been otherwise engaged.

By way of reply, let me say first that if sola scriptura is satisfactory and Sacred Scripture is perfectly clear, then I am bound to ask why all the different Protestant groups spawn so many diverse interpretations that cause them split up continually? As the late notable Evangelical Anglican scholar, John Stott, once confessed, Protestantism has a pathological tendency to divide. Quite so, and the Catholic is entitled to ask why this is the case. How can Protestants be “considerably united in their theology” with this propensity to divide, even over second order issues and, in some cases, petty personality clashes among the leadership. Sadly, as we are all fully aware, it is possible to prove almost anything from the bible, which is precisely why an objective, historical and universal interpretative authority is required in order to correctly ascertain God’s truth. If it be said that both reason and denoninational tradition help toward this very end, then we ask whose reason and which tradition? Alas, all men come to the bible, consciously or unconsciously, with a pre-existing theological framework and bias, so you will always have a multitude of interpretations of insights, which is most unsatisfactory, especially when this involves the central tenets of Christian doctrine and morals. This is exactly what I mean when I speak of a subjective “quagmire of competing opinions”.

Whilst the Holy Spirit is of vital importance for interpreting the Word of God, the problem is that all the Protestant ecclesial comminions claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance for their differing interpretations. Undeniably, all the denominations claim the Holy Spirit’s work, and yet they all disgree, hence their pathalogical tendency to readily divide at the drop of a hat. Was the Holy Spirit mistaken? Did He lead some men into the truth, but mislead others? The fact is that the Holy Spirit was given in the context of the community of faith. It is only through the one true Church established by Christ that the Holy Spirit works authentically and most fully. Therefore it is only the Church which can most authentically interpret Sacred Scripture for the faithful. Thus the Church alone can adjudicate as to what is and what is not part of the economy of God and what is true as touching faith and morals.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[louis91766]

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above and apologies for the delay in replying, but I have been otherwise engaged.

By way of reply, let me say first that if sola scriptura is satisfactory and Sacred Scripture is perfectly clear, then I am bound to ask why all the different Protestant groups spawn so many diverse interpretations that cause them split up continually? As the late notable Evangelical Anglican scholar, John Stott, once confessed, Protestantism has a pathological tendency to divide. Quite so, and the Catholic is entitled to ask why this is the case. How can Protestants be “considerably united in their theology” with this propensity to divide, even over second order issues and, in some cases, petty personality clashes among the leadership. Sadly, as we are all fully aware, it is possible to prove almost anything from the bible, which is precisely why an objective, historical and universal interpretative authority is required in order to correctly ascertain God’s truth. If it be said that both reason and denoninational tradition help toward this very end, then we ask whose reason and which tradition? Alas, all men come to the bible, consciously or unconsciously, with a pre-existing theological framework and bias, so you will always have a multitude of interpretations of insights, which is most unsatisfactory, especially when this involves the central tenets of Christian doctrine and morals. This is exactly what I mean when I speak of a subjective “quagmire of competing opinions”.

Whilst the Holy Spirit is of vital importance for interpreting the Word of God, the problem is that all the Protestant ecclesial comminions claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance for their differing interpretations. Undeniably, all the denominations claim the Holy Spirit’s work, and yet they all disgree, hence their pathalogical tendency to readily divide at the drop of a hat. Was the Holy Spirit mistaken? Did He lead some men into the truth, but mislead others? The fact is that the Holy Spirit was given in the context of the community of faith. It is only through the one true Church established by Christ that the Holy Spirit works authentically and most fully. Therefore it is only the Church which can most authentically interpret Sacred Scripture for the faithful. Thus the Church alone can adjudicate as to what is and what is not part of the economy of God and what is true as touching faith and morals.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Are Catholics united in whether slaves should submit themselves to their masters or not?

 

[Nicea325]

It was a disagreement about baptism. However, that’s beside the point for purpose of this discussion. The ensuing disagreement(put mildly) speaks to the fact that neither Cyprian or the 86 African bishops assembled at the council of Carthage had any concept of papal supremacy and would not tolerate Rome’s meddling. Cyprian’s view was that all bishops sat in Peter’s seat and expressed the unity of the church.

earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php

Org.uk? As in the United Kingdom? You sense no biased views here? As for your comment the council would not tolerate Rome’s meddling is also biased. How about going straight to the primary sources instead of leaning on secondary hand sources?

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman.

Hello again.

Our Lord prayed passionately that all His disciples would be one (S. Jn. 17: 21) and He said that the Church was to be one flock with one Shepherd (S. Jn. 10: 16). Now it appears jolly clear to me, dear friend, that all the unhappy divisions within Protestant religion have their roots in the Reformation when a single, historic and unified Church authority was discarded. Each new division produces a smaller and extreme group, but sadly it is true that each new extreme group is one step further from the mainstream of historic, fundamental Christianity, that is to say the Catholic Church.

Nearly all Catholics, myself included, would be prepared to acknowledge that God has utilised the different Protestant ecclesial communions to further His work on earth, but then He is always in the business of pulling good, as it were, out of man’s sinfulness. Now the Catholic Church does value diversity, but the Catholic paradigm is not a multitude of different denominations existing as a law unto themselves. Rather the diversity of emphasis, culture and theological approach exist within the organic unity of the Catholic Church. We have unity, not uniformity. All sectarian religion expects uniformity and only has internal unity because it has split from everyone else.

The bible does not counsel private interpretation. Thus, for example, when the Ethiopian man in the Acts said, “How can I (understand the prophet Isaiah), unless someone guides me?”, St. Philip did not reply, as a good Protestant would have, “The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth, if you prayerfully ask Him” - but in accordance with the need for an official and correct interpretation, St. Philip began to instruct him in the true meaning of the prophecy and preached Christ unto Him, after which the good man received the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Philip understood what many Protestants fail to understand, namely that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”.

If every sincere interpretation is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, then this can only mean that God the Holy Spirit inspires totally irreconcilable and contradictory understandings - an unthinkable absurdity, as I am sure you would concur. Moreover, there can be no obligation upon every man to search for divine truth in the bible, since Christ never said that the ability to read was necessary for salvation. He never once commanded us to discover by the reading of Scripture what we ought to believe. Such a command would have been a grevious hardship at a time when there were no printed books, when manuscripts were costly and when most men were illiterate. Mass literacy is a phenomenom only of the Renaissance age.

With respect to II Tim. 3: 16-17, the Sacred text states that the Scriptures are “profitable” for certain purposes; it does not say that they alone will suffice or that they are the sole rule of faith. St. Paul simply says that “All Scripture is inspired by God”. It does not say “only Scripture” and it does not say, nor even imply, that God never commisions anyone else to speak in His name.

It is indeed the desire of the Catholic Church that the faithful read Sacred Scripture frequently. However, since the bible contains “some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”, it would be an error to expect to comprehend readily all that a man reads in the bible. Therefore, it is to the Church and not to the individual that God has entrusted the two sources of Divine Revelation - Scripture and Tradition - and thus we ought to read the bible in union with the Church’s holy teaching and understanding, and never pitted against them. As the good Lord has given us Scripture for our instruction and formation, we surely should make a point of reading, marking, learning and inwardly digesting it in a spirit of faith, humility and docility, in union with the Church, and that prayerfully and devoutly. God’s holy Word is, in the words of Leo XIII, “a letter written by our Heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race on its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly homeland”.

Kelman, I sincerely respect your veneration of God’s holy Word and salute it. It is only in recent decades that Catholics have at last begun to earnestly delve into the treasures of Sacred Scripture and this is all to the good. However, I would commend you, my dear friend, to the Catholic Church, which is the central Christian authority which can truly heal the sad divisions in the body of Christ; it alone offers, I believe, a solid rock on which to build, notwithstanding some terrible faullts and problems within its bosom.

God bless you,

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Are Catholics united in whether slaves should submit themselves to their masters or not?

Dear louis,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above.

All orthodox Catholics would be in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture, which states that “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or idealogical, commercial or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity pf persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive valueor to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…both in the flesh and in the Lord’” (2414).

God bless, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[louis91766]

Dear louis,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above.

All orthodox Catholics would be in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture, which states that “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or idealogical, commercial or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity pf persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive valueor to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…both in the flesh and in the Lord’” (2414).

God bless, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

However, St. Peter was the first Pope, not St. Paul. And did St. Peter declare in 1Peter2 : “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” Has this been the unanimous teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years or has there been dissent on this teaching? I know that there is disagreement among Protestants, but haven’t Catholics disagreed about moral issues like this also?

 

[Portrait]

However, St. Peter was the first Pope, not St. Paul. And did St. Peter declare in 1Peter2 : “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” Has this been the unanimous teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years or has there been dissent on this teaching? I know that there is disagreement among Protestants, but haven’t Catholics disagreed about moral issues like this also?

Dear louis,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

First, not everything that we see men doing in Sacred Scripture, even very holy men, represents the highest ideal of human activity. Both the Old and New Testaments unfold the gradual understanding of the full implications of God’s Word as He reveals it to us. Needless to say, this understanding even now has a long way to go and greater insight is always occuring.

Second, it is true that the early Church was a great deal more tolerant of slavery and indeed other social ills than we would be today. Perhaps it is better to say that they accepted it as a sad fact of life because it was so much a part of the then social fabric and could not be changed quickly, thus they endeavoured to live with it, being as faithful to the ideals of Christ as they could.

Goodbye for now and God bless you, my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

PR Yes but how many years was that after there were Christians? How do we know after all of that time that the entity got all of Her interpretations right? Other than by faith?

Hiya, friend.

Yes–it was 400 years before Christians had a Bible. 400 years! That’s like the time from when the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock to present day. Imagine all of that time without the Constitution!

How do we know that the Church got it right? I guess you’re right–you have to have faith in some authority. There is no other way for you or for anyone here to know that Jesus said, for example, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive others” except through tacitly having faith in the Church.

And the only way we know that this story about Jesus:
*
And after these things one day Jesus was playing with other boys upon the top of an house of two stories. And one child was pushed down by another and thrown down to the ground and died. And the boys which were playing with him, when they saw it, fled, and Jesus was left alone standing upon the roof whence the boy was thrown down.*

is not inspired is because we have tacitly had faith in the Church’s ability to discern that this was NOT theopneustos.

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
For that matter, so is your church. There is no church, pastor or pope who knows all things perfectly at all times.

You just agreed with me that no one knows all things perfectly so how does that translate into it being “impossible to determine what the Word of God is trying to tell us”? Scripture is not some spiritual puzzle that we can’t understand until someone deciphers or unravels it for us…aside, of course, from the Holy Spirit.

Somebody has to teach Christ’s followers. That is why Christ built the Church in the first place. The Bible is there for us to learn from and NOT to make our interpretive theologies.

I agree someone has to teach and we find in the Bible that God in His mercy made provision for teachers. However, we see no provision for an universal interpretive authority.

The Church only teach what was taught from the beginning, nothing added or subtracted.

I think there are few who actually believe that since the historical record proves otherwise.

Of course, you will disagree and we can go around in circles. I will give reasons and your responses will be the equivalent of saying “whatever”.

No, I assure you that if you offer legitimate arguments my responses would not be “whatever”…that’s not what I’m here for. I enjoy reasoned arguments without the volume of extraneous unsupported opinion.

Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

I agree. While I am not Christ’s greatest follower (far from it, the worst even), I can still say “the Holy Spirit taught me that the Church has the authority given by Christ to teach us.” You will disagree and claim the opposite.

Exactly, we both use our private fallible judgment with regard to what we believe is true.

Trivializing the Holy Spirit is exactly what doctrinal interpretation does. We believe that Christ and His Apostles taught everything we need to know. That knowledge (the words of God) is passed down orally and written.

Where are these oral words of the Lord and His Apostles? I’d love to read them.

The Church just infallibly declares as official the beliefs as she learns more of what Christ and His Apostles taught. And NOT add to the original Deposit of Faith as some people wrongly assume.

New revelation from God? I doubt your church would say that. I think it prefers “development”? Nevertheless, can’t have it both ways - a doctrine never taught, never even heard of, 2000 years ago and taught now is adding to what God has given us in Scripture.

Originally Posted by kelman
Now if my church was to come up with some doctrine…say, for instance, “purgatory”? I would know immediately they were in error. I know this because God is clear that the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all the sins of those He came to save. He in fact removes these sins “as far as the east is from the west” so that not even the so-called “temporal” effects are imputed to me. Christ “…is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,…”(Heb 7:25).

Hmm… You quote those verses as if we are supposed to agree with your interpretation of it. That is, your interpretation that it negates the doctrine of Purgatory.

Not at all. I don’t expect you to agree with me on much of anything. Still, Scripture does come in handy to refute certain doctrines. “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins”. (1 John 2:2)

And of course, you assume that Purgatory negates Christ’s work for some reason. You only disagree with what you THINK the doctrine is.

I know precisely what the doctrine of purgatory involves and yes it does diminish the perfect redemptive work of Christ. It is not possible for man to make payment for his own sins - hence the Incarnation.

We want to have fruitful discussion about why it is or is not true, and not merely correcting anti-Catholic bias like your above statement.

My statements are only as “anti-Catholic” as yours are “anti-Protestant”.

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman View Post
Except you can’t find the church that Christ started unless you know what both teach. To find what Jesus teaches, we go to the Bible. To find out what the RCC teaches we go to its catechism.

It’s unfortunate you consider this “anti” anything and even “mean”. It is neither. What it is is disagreement with your beliefs, just as you disagree with mine.

But, I will make an addendum to your statement that more corresponds with what is true.
To find out what the RCC teaches we go to Jesus.

Is this your version of being mean and anti-Protestant?

Originally Posted by kelman
Nope, actually it just reeks of common sense. Why would anyone go to a church which teaches a theology he disagrees with?

Apparently, common sense and arrogance are synonymous. I go to many churches. Sure, I play trumpet there, but your uncommon sense would tell you to not go based on prejudice.

Disregarding your novel definition of words, the point was going to a church, being a member of a church, worshipping at a church, whose theology you disagree with.

So, to say it “reeks of common sense” is to say that all those people (including Yours Truly) have little to no common sense. And that is mean.

Hopefully, after my explanation, you realize I wasn’t being quite so “mean”?

 

[kelman]

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, in which he says,“Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.”

Easy. The historical record demonstrates the early church, or more precisely many early fathers, held a different canon than the one your church decided on.

Which is it, kelman: find the church that conforms to your own likings–and then worship with people who agree with you…
OR
Go to any SS church, because they all agree with you anyway in the basics.

Your choices are not mutually exclusive. Worshipping with like-minded people would be at a church which holds to sola Scriptura.

Ah. So I see where your problem lies in your objection to purgatory: you are uninformed about what it actually is.

No, as I mentioned before, I know precisely what the dogma of purgatory teaches.

Purgatory is possible ONLY because “the Lord Jesus alone has made payment for all of the sins of those He came to save.”

Yes, I understand that. However, His sacrifice didn’t achieve its full purpose which was to pay for the sins of those He came to save, since man must now also pay for his own sins in purgatory. Can’t have it both ways - Jesus paid for all sins(which the Bible insists) yet I must also pay for my own sins in purgatory.

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
To find what Jesus teaches, we go to the Bible.

No church has authority over Scripture. It has authority of its own separate from the church.

Originally Posted by kelman
Nope, I don’t assume they are wrong and my goodness it’s not as if God has left us without the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. And in this inspired Word, He commands us to meditate day and night.

And which Holy Spirit do you mean, kelman? The one who tells Lutherans that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, or the one that tells Presbyterians that it’s merely a symbol?

I’ll answer with a question of my own. Which Holy Spirit tells the EO that it is the one true church and also tells RCC that it is the one true church?

 

[kelman]

Originally Posted by kelman
It might very well be claimed that this is precisely what Rome did - start its own church.

Prove that Rome started its own church? Well since neither Scripture or the early church demonstrates an entity such as the RCC or “supreme” papal authority, it certainly seems that it did.

You sort of forgot to address my question:
By whose authority do I have the right to start my own church and call my established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost,…

No, I didn’t forget. I answered with the above statement…about RCC starting its own church. I truly think that Roman Catholics have little understanding about the biblical churches started at Pentecost. In them there were no popes, no apostolic succession(other than preserving Scripture), no hierarchal priesthood, etc. That a particular See wrested power and authority at some point in history doesn’t make it the church started by Jesus Christ.

The church are those who are “called out” and lay hold to the promises and truths of Scripture…not lay hold to the promises and truth of itself. Christians gathering together, seeking God together, and speaking the truth in love to one another. That’s what a church is and that authority comes from God.

 

[kelman]

Actually, the Festal Letter of Athanasius is addressed only to Alexandria, of which Athanasius is Bishop, not the whole Church.

Yes, I understand it wasn’t to the entire church. That wouldn’t be the norm since the various Sees were independent of each other. Still, "Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

And you missed what he wrote in…part 7 of your link:

No, I didn’t miss it at all. He writes that those books are not inspired Scripture.

1. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You just agreed with me that no one knows all things perfectly so how does that translate into it being “impossible to determine what the Word of God is trying to tell us”? Scripture is not some spiritual puzzle that we can’t understand until someone deciphers or unravels it for us…aside, of course, from the Holy Spirit.

I honestly forgot why I posted that. Whoops! I think it had to do with what you said in response. I really have no clue. Sorry…

I agree someone has to teach and we find in the Bible that God in His mercy made provision for teachers. However, we see no provision for an universal interpretive authority.

Fair enough. But we do.

I think there are few who actually believe that since the historical record proves otherwise.

Yes, we know you believe that, but can you substantiate it?

No, I assure you that if you offer legitimate arguments my responses would not be “whatever”…that’s not what I’m here for. I enjoy reasoned arguments without the volume of extraneous unsupported opinion.

Me too… But you have yet to give “reasoned arguments” based on the what we actually believe.

Exactly, we both use our private fallible judgment with regard to what we believe is true.

No, I don’t do that. I said that I “can” (or was it “could”?) do that. That does not translate to I “do” do that.

I believe whatever the Church believes.

Where are these oral words of the Lord and His Apostles? I’d love to read them.

I thought I made it clear that these words were not written… It is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Before the New Testament was written, was it or was it not believed that Christ was God? If yes, then you agree that oral Tradition plays a huge role in shedding light on the Truth. If you still don’t agree, then how is it that they believed it without anything written?

New revelation from God? I doubt your church would say that. I think it prefers “development”? Nevertheless, can’t have it both ways - a doctrine never taught, never even heard of, 2000 years ago and taught now is adding to what God has given us in Scripture.

Who said anything about “new revelation from God”? I certainly didn’t. But yes, the Church does say “develop”.

And I agree with that last post-hyphen part.

Not at all. I don’t expect you to agree with me on much of anything. Still, Scripture does come in handy to refute certain doctrines. “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins”. (1 John 2:2)

That verse refutes nothing of what we believe in the doctrine of Purgatory.

I know precisely what the doctrine of purgatory involves and yes it does diminish the perfect redemptive work of Christ. It is not possible for man to make payment for his own sins - hence the Incarnation.

No, you don’t know precisely what Purgatory involves. What you say that does “diminish” Christ’s work on the Cross is what you THINK Purgatory is. Again, just take 5 minutes of your time to go look at a legitimate Catholic site like this one. Look for Purgatory and read what it says.

Things you can do:

1. Still disagree with it.
2. Make a reasoned argument why it is still wrong according to what the doctrine states.

Things you cannot do:

1. Make your own inferences about the doctrine.
2. Make a reasoned argument why it is wrong according to what you THINK it says (especially if we correct you on our own beliefs.
3. Still think you are right about what we believe even though others have tried to correct you.

Does that sound good? Yes? Ok.

Your post would be much like me saying, “salvation by faith alone means that you don’t believe we are saved by Christ’s good work” and then you correct me and then I say, “I know what you believe and don’t believe.” I know you don’t believe that. In the same way, you should know we don’t believe the things you think we do.

My statements are only as “anti-Catholic” as yours are “anti-Protestant”.

Ok, where did I ever knock on Protestant doctrine.

An anti-Catholic is not just someone who dislikes/disagrees with Catholicism. An anti-Catholic is someone who does not give Catholics the time to explain away, or even if we do explain things, it purposely goes in one ear and out the other. They also purposely mess with the doctrine to make it wrong, thereby increasing the hatred for the institution.

For example, when somebody says that Purgatory diminishes Christ’s work, that somebody is corrected by Catholics (on a Catholic site, no less) AND he/she is still adamant about their false opinion, that is anti-Catholic for a couple of reason: they don’t care what we say; they are condescending in that they know more than the Catholics about Catholic doctrine; they wish to stay ignorant.

I have done nothing even remotely close to this. You just felt like saying I was anti-Protestant. Not only do have no proof, but you are wrong.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It’s unfortunate you consider this “anti” anything and even “mean”. It is neither. What it is is disagreement with your beliefs, just as you disagree with mine.

Because it is under the assumption that the Bible and the catechism are mutually exclusive… I am pretty sure you think that anyway.

By saying so with your assumptions, it leads me to believe that you think we cherish our catechisms more than we do the Bible; that is most certainly not true.

I rarely read my catechism. I only read it for questions I may have about Catholic doctrine that are unclear to me during my reading of the Bible.

Is this your version of being mean and anti-Protestant?

Haha… No, you said yourself Protestants go to the Bible. I have absolutely no qualms with that. No Catholic should have problems with a person going to the Bible for some 411.

Catholics only have a problem with using the Bible as the final authority, just as you do with the Church as the final authority.

Disregarding your novel definition of words, the point was going to a church, being a member of a church, worshipping at a church, whose theology you disagree with.

“Novel definitions”? Those are not… Nevermind.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. While I still disagree that “common sense” is the correct phrasing, I can see where you are coming from. But that is only a minor disagreement. We can nix it.

Hopefully, after my explanation, you realize I wasn’t being quite so “mean”?

Well, it did help a lot, but some people just don’t realize what they actually say to other people. What may come off as nice (or at least, neutral) may be offensive to some. Just food for thought. I know your intentions were not offensive. We are here for the same reasons. To learn our own beliefs and others… But, intentions and actions can be the complete opposite.

You words seem much more calm in this post than any other.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Your choices are not mutually exclusive. Worshipping with like-minded people would be at a church which holds to sola Scriptura.

Nope, I worship at a Catholic Church. Therefore, that statement is wrong. Unless you were talking about yourself or other Sola Scriptura advocates…

No, as I mentioned before, I know precisely what the dogma of purgatory teaches.

Yes, you did mention that, but that doesn’t make it true. You don’t know what Purgatory teaches. When have you ever heard a legitimate Catholic teacher says, “since Christ’s work did not achieve its full purpose, there must be a place that does. And that is what we call Purgatory.” Or anything similar to that. Or where have you ever read in official Catholic documents?

My guess is that you got your misconstrued view of Purgatory from somebody whose view was already misconstrued.

Yes, I understand that. However, His sacrifice didn’t achieve its full purpose which was to pay for the sins of those He came to save, since man must now also pay for his own sins in purgatory. Can’t have it both ways - Jesus paid for all sins(which the Bible insists) yet I must also pay for my own sins in purgatory.

That is a false dilemma. Jesus redemptive work is what cleanses us. That is why we have Confession, Purgatory, etc… Because Christ’s work is complete. Nothing is missing

And to say what you just said is more than enough evidence to prove that you do not know precisely what Purgatory is. Why will you not believe Catholics on a Catholic website about what Catholics believe?

If Catholics are correcting you, why are still so adamant that you are right about our own beliefs? You say you want to have reasoned arguments, but you are not putting forth the effort for it. Fairness is requisite to reasoned arguments.

 

[JRRTFAN]

It might very well be claimed that this is precisely what Rome did - start its own church.

Who is this “Rome” of who you post? What would you say of the Melkites and Maronites?