R
reteeks21
Guest
If, and only if Scripture is the sole authority on faith why in the world are there so many interpretations and divisions? At least the Church has been consistent for 2,000 years.
- Status
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Well, they sink themselves with their own semantics. It’s not really Scripture they hold as the final authority, if you really analyze what they’re doing. It’s the individual’s interpretation of Scripture which they hold to be the final authority. Even Martin Luther was horrified at all the self-interpreting that Protestantism fostered.
Protestantism, because of its belief in the man-made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, must constantly splinter into more and more denominations, ad infinitum. Why? Because they don’t recognize any authority but the individual’s. And, since they read Scripture through the filter of each individual’s personality, life experiences, etc., they end up with no end to the number of different interpretations of Scripture. Then, they disagree with one another and pop out a new denomination.
Protestantism, because of its belief in the man-made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, must constantly splinter into more and more denominations, ad infinitum. Why? Because they don’t recognize any authority but the individual’s. And, since they read Scripture through the filter of each individual’s personality, life experiences, etc., they end up with no end to the number of different interpretations of Scripture. Then, they disagree with one another and pop out a new denomination.
J
Julian0404
Guest
Read again the story of the Tower of Babel, wherein men, in their pride, tried to build a tower to reach GOD. GOD confused them in speech so the Tower was never completed, but today that pride still exists in “words”, and men are still trying, in their pride, to reach GOD in their own terms.
A
AngloCatholic1
Guest
Very well stated. Amen, bro!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Or the Great Western Schism, or the multitude of disciplinary canons which the Catholic Church ignores, or the fact that popes could and did outright contradict the rulings of their predecessors.
The OP has made a very dangerous argument here.
A
AngloCatholic1
Guest
Nice try, JonNC. Little Luther caught misbehaving…looks about…points his finger at another and shouts “But HE started it!”. The old “spread the blame” game. The proper parental response in this case might be "Now, now Luther…Go to your room, shut the door, get down on your knees and say ten Our Father’s and ten Hail Mary’s!!!
If we’re looking for examples of those who bring about schisms, dear Lutheran, ought we not to look to scripture itself?:
"Jesus replied to them, ‘Did I not choose the Twelve of you? Yet one of you is a devil.’ " - John 6:70 (NJB)
And there he is: Judas…the New Testament father of ALL who bring about DIVISION in the Church of Jesus Christ here on earth.
This is they very point I was trying to make. Not sure what Anglocatholic1’s point was.
Jon
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
The exact example I would have brought up!
Division is part of our sinful humanity. The great news is that Christ’s founded Church will always be standing, never to crumble into the dust of this world.
So, what’s the argument here…
God Bless ya’ll!
N
Nicea325
Guest
Usual respond by you Nine_Two: Some sort of knock against the RCC. You act as though the Orthodox has never made errors. The East is known historically as being riddled with heresies. You do not call placing Constantinople above other ancients sees as ignoring something that was well known? I call it selfish and I wonder why the pope refused to accept the canon?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Usual Strawman there Nicea325: Pretend I made an argument I didn’t, and ignore the points I did make. Then do exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing.
I’d make a reply to what you said, but I’ve dealt with you in the past, you will ignore everything I answer and make strawman arguments.
If you want to have a real conversation you might want to quite it with the ad hominems and non-sequiters.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It would be nice if a Catholic would address the point, or make the admission that it is a bad argument, rather than launch into tyraids against people for making the observation, while ignoring the point.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well my apologies for my reply, it was uncalled for. No offense,but if you want a real conversation,then you too should be careful as to what you say. You came out already saying the RCC has ignored canons,etc. Kinda harsh-don’t ya think? You think that will spark ‘real’ conversations? I am done with the pointing-fingers with others here as to who is right or wrong,etc… In the end,we are all aiming for the same goal: salvation.
Now on a brighter side, how can the RCC/Orthodox work towards unification?
N
Nicea325
Guest
The above is applicable to ALL Christians,not just Catholics. Peace.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Apologies accepted. Since you do sound like you are willing to have a conversation, I will open up.Well my apologies for my reply, it was uncalled for. No offense,but if you want a real conversation,then you too should be careful as to what you say. You came out already saying the RCC has ignored canons,etc. Kinda harsh-don’t ya think? You think that will spark ‘real’ conversations? I am done with the pointing-fingers with others here as to who is right or wrong,etc… In the end,we are all aiming for the same goal: salvation.
Now on a brighter side, how can the RCC/Orthodox work towards unification?
You are correct, I did say that the RCC ignores canons (though I specified disciplinary canons). As evidence I give you Canon 20 of the Council of Nicea which states that prayers should be said standing.
I think you’ll agree with me that this canon is disciplinary, and is notsomething that will cause either damnation or stop one from being a Christian. That it is a canon indicates it was the way of Rome at one time, or at the very least Rome agreed to it (given the Catholic view of Ecumenical Councils), however this is not currently the case, kneeling has been the posture of prayer for quite some time, this most certainly fullfills the spirit of the law (that there should be uniformity in prayer), however the Church has not been consistant in its implication of that canon.
There are other examples, some disciplinary, some how certain things have been interpreted and taught by the church (such as “There is no Salvation outside the Church”), these do not prove the church deficient, or wrong, however they do prove that the Church has not been consistant in how it has seen things throughout its history, which was the crux of the argument in the OP, and what I objected to.
Saying that the RCC has ignored canons, particularly, as I said, disciplinary canons, is not a harsh thing to say because it proves a lack of complete consistancy.
If you wish to take up the argument that the Church has always been completely consistant, go for it, I await proofs.
Other Christians had already admitted it was a bad argument, and were not launching into tyrades against people observing this.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Lets see, the NT is the life experiences of individuals, its about individual personalities, its about life experiences isn’t it?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are individuals. They wrote about their presonal life experiences with Jesus. Each one saw thing a little different then the other. Each one experienced something different then the other. They used their personal life experiences, and wrote their interpretations of what they experienced during their life with Jesus. Sure there are things that are the same but also there are things that are different.
Much like us today, we agree on somethings and we disagree on somethings. Each of us can use our individual life experiences and compare them to what is written in the Bible. What is wrong with using ones life experiences? Didn’t Jesus use others life experiences to get his message across? Didn’t he use his own life experiences to get his message across? See we, meaning people, are so self-centered that we go around with blinders on. People believe that there is only one way to worship, one way to spread his word, that we don’t see the good the other denominations do. We don’t see that they are bring people closer to God. We are so cought up in, this is the only way because its been like that for 2000 years, that we loose what Jesus meant. He gave each of us a life experience to share, to help preach his word. I was homeless and poor so you are saying I can’t use that life experience to preach about the helping the homeless and helping the poor?
Out of hundreds of disciples, Jesus chose 12 to be his close friends. Thats not to say the rest of the hundreds didn’t stay around. They were preached to by Jesus and I’m sure they saw things and understood things differently and talked about what they learned in their own understanding. We were not created to be like mindless robots that can’t think and understand things for ourselves. He gave each of us a mind to think and understand things differently.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Indeed I agree and trust me I know of the failures of the RCC as well the Orthodox who also have their shares of it. However, as I stated, I am not concerned with who did what or who did not do such and such;moreover, how the two great churches can re-unite. The pointing-fingers of what happened in the past is exactly that: the past. Cannnot move forward,if the failures of the past become the focus. Both sides must learn from it and move on in order to avoid it. We must focus on the strenghts as well and not strictly weaknesses.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Except that isn’t the topic of this thread. No one has made the claim that Orthodox are always consistant in this thread, someone has made the claim that Catholics are, and they’ve used this as a point of contention against Protestants.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well I do agree the individual should have been more specific. The term ‘consistent’ can apply to many areas,so yes I do agree.
E
ebcat
Guest
Nine_Two, If I said I am so hungry that I could eat a horse do you think I could really eat a horse or that I mean that I think I could really eat a horse? I don’t think the OP meant The Church has a six sigma or three sigma process when it comes to consistency in every single matter. I think he meant that he sees the most consistency in the Catholic Church, more specifically when it come to biblical interpretation and where the final authority comes from and that is the discussion he was opening up. I believe you are the one posing the straw man when you say The Church doesn’t hold to all disciplinary canons.
My apologies if I misunderstood your posts. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It just seems your claws came out very fast, but I understand. The OP was posed in a belligerent way.
My apologies if I misunderstood your posts. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It just seems your claws came out very fast, but I understand. The OP was posed in a belligerent way.
- Status