If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church...

[JonNC]

=scottm;7167716]Speaking as a 30-year Protestant, I disagree. They can and would admit that the church of the Apostles was the Catholic/Orthodox Church (there being no difference back in those days). They can and would admit that Peter was the first Roman pope, and that there is an unbroken line of Roman popes. Likewise there is an unbroken line of patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople and Alexandria.

Exactly.

At the same time they would, and do, insist that the Catholic and Orthodox churches strayed outside the boundaries set by the Bible. By their view the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are not teaching what the united church taught back in the early centuries

And they (we) would be correct, at least to the extent that they are in schism. If they both still taught what the united Church taught, they would not be in schism. So, one or the other has strayed from Scripture, the ECF’s, the early councils, etc., or both have, to one degree or another.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Speaking as a 30-year Protestant, I disagree. They can and would admit that the church of the Apostles was the Catholic/Orthodox Church (there being no difference back in those days). They can and would admit that Peter was the first Roman pope, and that there is an unbroken line of Roman popes. Likewise there is an unbroken line of patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople and Alexandria.

Right - which is why they are also authentic Churches, although they (or we, depending on your point of view) are in schism.

At the same time they would, and do, insist that the Catholic and Orthodox churches strayed outside the boundaries set by the Bible. By their view the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are not teaching what the united church taught back in the early centuries.

This is Biblically impossible, since Jesus gave His Church the promise of indefectibility ("… the gates of Hell shall not prevail …" Matt. 16:19) - if Jesus is God, and the Catholic Church is what He founded, then no error has occurred from that time until now, nor will it ever, until the end of the world.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7167780]Right - which is why they are also authentic Churches, although they (or we, depending on your point of view) are in schism.

How can both be the one true Church?

This is Biblically impossible, since Jesus gave His Church the promise of indefectibility ("… the gates of Hell shall not prevail …" Matt. 16:19) - if Jesus is God, and the Catholic Church is what He founded, then no error has occurred from that time until now, nor will it ever, until the end of the world.

So, which one has this indefectibility? And how can I as a Lutheran know for sure, other than by the say-so of each?

EDIT: Oh, and it seems to me that the gates of Hell would have to prevail against the Church Triumphant, too for it to be a Biblical Impossibility.
Jon

 

[scottm]

jmcrae:

This is Biblically impossible, since Jesus gave His Church the promise of indefectibility ("… the gates of Hell shall not prevail …" Matt. 16:19) - if Jesus is God, and the Catholic Church is what He founded, then no error has occurred from that time until now, nor will it ever, until the end of the world.

Duh, the gates of hell did not prevail. The Reformation happened.
What Protestant denomination were you a member of?

 

[jmcrae]

Duh, the gates of hell did not prevail. The Reformation happened.

The Reformation solved absolutely nothing. It split into four contradictory denominations within the first ten years, and has been multiplying confusion upon confusion ever since - and this is apart from the fact that they don’t even pretend to have any form of Apostolic Succession.

What Protestant denomination were you a member of?

The United Church of Canada.

 

[scottm]

So, which one has this indefectibility? And how can I as a Lutheran know for sure, other than by the say-so of each?

Honestly, you can’t, because you operate under a broken system. The “sola scriptura” that you are bound to affirm prevents by design the determination of a final answer.

Fundamentally what Lutherans and Baptist etc. are doing is what people do in literature classes. The class reads a play or short story or whatever, and then they discuss and debate what Character X meant when he said such-and-such, and what the significance of such-and-such was, and this and that and so forth. Out of 27 students there will be at least two but perhaps even five dominant interpretations. The students will then each write a five-page essay defending their favorite interpretation. Maybe this semester there was an unusually bright student who championed Position 1 far better than anybody championed any other position. That does not make Position 1 correct because last semester the best student took Position 3, and a couple years back the best student took Position 2.

That is what Lutherans and Baptists etc are doing when they extract doctrine “sola scriptura,” but of course they’re doing it with the Bible rather than some Oscar Wilde play. Oscar Wilde is dead, and so is Paul and so is Peter, so we can’t ask them what they meant. For that reason there is no objective answer and there never will be an objective answer from Sola Scriptura proof-texting.

 

[scottm]

Hey, Jmcrae, you’re not allowed to put words in the other guy’s mouth, and say it’s his. The question concerned why Protestants say such-and-such. Let the Protestants state their position. You don’t want them to state Roman Catholic doctrine for you.

 

[jmcrae]

How can both be the one true Church?

They are authentic Churches by means of Apostolic Succession. We know that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church, making him its Chief Shepherd (John 21:15-19) so we look for his Successor - and we find Pope Benedict XVI.

So, which one has this indefectibility? And how can I as a Lutheran know for sure, other than by the say-so of each?

Which one has all four marks of the Church? One - (there are seven Orthodox churches; only one Catholic Church); Holy (both are Holy), Catholic (reaches out to the whole world without regard for ethnic origin - not the Orthodox, since they are divided along ethnic lines; therefore, the Catholic Church, since it includes everyone without regard for ethnic origin) and Apostolic (both are Apostolic).

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7167809]The Reformation solved absolutely nothing. It split into four contradictory denominations within the first ten years, and has been multiplying confusion upon confusion ever since - and this is apart from the fact that they don’t even pretend to have any form of Apostolic Succession.

Since there was never one denomintation, which four denominations did they “split” into?

Jon

 

[Publisher]

They are authentic Churches by means of Apostolic Succession. We know that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church, making him its Chief Shepherd (John 21:15-19) so we look for his Successor - and we find Pope Benedict XVI.

Which one has all four marks of the Church? One - (there are seven Orthodox churches; only one Catholic Church); Holy (both are Holy), Catholic (reaches out to the whole world without regard for ethnic origin - not the Orthodox, since they are divided along ethnic lines; therefore, the Catholic Church, since it includes everyone without regard for ethnic origin) and Apostolic (both are Apostolic).

I wonder what the Orthodox think about them not being a single church but “seven”? Is this the Orthodox position…or the Catholic position concerning the Orthodox?

 

[jmcrae]

Since there was never one denomintation, which four denominations did they “split” into?

Jon

Lutheran, Mennonite, Calvinist, and Anglican.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7167824]They are authentic Churches by means of Apostolic Succession. We know that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church, making him its Chief Shepherd (John 21:15-19) so we look for his Successor - and we find Pope Benedict XVI.

Does Scott agree with your interpretation of the role of the Bishop of Rome?

Which one has all four marks of the Church? One - (there are seven Orthodox churches; only one Catholic Church); Holy (both are Holy), Catholic (reaches out to the whole world without regard for ethnic origin - not the Orthodox, since they are divided along ethnic lines; therefore, the Catholic Church, since it includes everyone without regard for ethnic origin) and Apostolic (both are Apostolic).

And this?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I wonder what the Orthodox think about them not being a single church but “seven”?

There are seven Patriarchs, none of whom is accountable to any of the others, each doing his own thing - hence, seven Churches.

 

[Publisher]

There are seven Patriarchs, none of whom is accountable to any of the others, each doing his own thing - hence, seven Churches.

Is this the Orthodox position…or the Catholic position concerning the Orthodox?

 

[JonNC]

Lutheran, Mennonite, Calvinist, and Anglican.

Lutherans and Calvinists were never one to split from each other. Anglicans split from Rome separately from Lutherans. Anabaptists predate Anglicans, and they were never part of Lutheranism. There was never one “Protestant Church”.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Is this the Orthodox position…or the Catholic position concerning the Orthodox?

In theory, they are supposed to be in Council, double checking one another and staying on the same page. In practice, however, I don’t think they ever actually meet together, and there are huge variances in practice between the various Orthodox churches.

 

[jmcrae]

Lutherans and Calvinists were never one to split from each other. Anglicans split from Rome separately from Lutherans. Anabaptists predate Anglicans, and they were never part of Lutheranism. There was never one “Protestant Church”.

Jon

Given that, then, which one represents the True Reform, and succeeds to the Catholic Church as the bearer and witness of all truth?

 

[JonNC]

Honestly, you can’t, because you operate under a broken system. The “sola scriptura” that you are bound to affirm prevents by design the determination of a final answer.

Fundamentally what Lutherans and Baptist etc. are doing is what people do in literature classes. The class reads a play or short story or whatever, and then they discuss and debate what Character X meant when he said such-and-such, and what the significance of such-and-such was, and this and that and so forth. Out of 27 students there will be at least two but perhaps even five dominant interpretations. The students will then each write a five-page essay defending their favorite interpretation. Maybe this semester there was an unusually bright student who championed Position 1 far better than anybody championed any other position. That does not make Position 1 correct because last semester the best student took Position 3, and a couple years back the best student took Position 2.

That is what Lutherans and Baptists etc are doing when they extract doctrine “sola scriptura,” but of course they’re doing it with the Bible rather than some Oscar Wilde play. Oscar Wilde is dead, and so is Paul and so is Peter, so we can’t ask them what they meant. For that reason there is no objective answer and there never will be an objective answer from Sola Scriptura proof-texting.

And Catholics and Orthodox do the same, but they do it from a reference point of Tradition, as well. In fact, your scenario better relates to CC/OC than Lutherans and Baptists, since Lutherans and Baptists never sat in the same class together.

Jon

 

[Publisher]

In theory, they are supposed to be in Council, double checking one another and staying on the same page. In practice, however, I don’t think they ever actually meet together, and there are huge variances in practice between the various Orthodox churches.

Are there not variances in practice between the various rites of the Catholic church? Do not the Eastern Catholics believe differently concerning some doctrines from the Latin church? Does this constitute a “different” chruch?

Again…is your understanding concerning the Orthodox the Orthodox position…or are you giving a Catholic position concerning the Orthodox by stating they are not “one church”?

 

[JonNC]

Honestly, you can’t, because you operate under a broken system. The “sola scriptura” that you are bound to affirm prevents by design the determination of a final answer.

Let’s say then, that I am willing to dispense with sola scriptura, even the Lutheran version that doesn’t exclude Tradition, how can I discern with of the two, CC or OC, is the one True Church, from TRADITION?

Jon