If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[benhur]

So your primary measure for a Christian leader is whether they have the gift of Charisma?

Is being filled with the spirit, as during Pentecost or as Paul says to be continually filled, an "eek "measurement or qualification ?

As I grew up Baptist, I’ll fully concede that the main part of the Baptist service was the sermon. It had to be entertaining and engaging, or we didn’t feel that the “spirit” was upon us as strongly that day.

Entertaining and engaging are two really two opposite poles, especially if you mean spiritually engaging. Yet is it wrong to admit that sometimes the Spirit is more engaging than at other times ? Is the Wind of God always gaged at !2.2 miles per hour ?

As a Catholic, the main part of the service is where we celebrate Christ’s sacrifice for us. The homily (what a protestant may call a sermon) was secondary to that.

I know.But as T is suggesting , sometimes it is evident that the homily is of secondary importance, that the Word in the Host has preeminence to His actual Word.

You don’t have to be an eloquent speaker to be a representative of God. Moses is a fine example

Agree. Again, do not equate eloquence with an “anointed word”. Being precise and effectual, even cutting, is a work of the Spirit.

Blessings

 

[MartinJordan]

The priesthood of all believers speaks of a spiritual aspect of the lives of the faithful. The hierarchy concerns a different part of Catholic life, the structure of the Church.
If the priesthood of all believers negated the structure of the Church, Christ would have never appointed twelve apostles, nor would there be church leaders well accepted by the Bible, as was Titus, for example, in charge of the Church in Crete–who was appointed by Saint Paul to this position, who wrote to Titus as head of the Church in Crete in the Epistle to Titus.

:yup: :harp:

MJ

 

[Vonsalza]

Hey Ben, Thanks for the continued chat.

The CC had (has?) a hard time accepting that indeed the Spirit is at work in these “other” churches, and is not diminishing.

I think the primary reason is that these “other churches” contradict each other continuously in their teaching. Thus if the Spirit really is at work in all of them, it must be lying to most of them.

We know the Spirit can’t lie, so something’s amiss in Protestantism.

Agree but that goes both ways, the merit of simply flourishing, or enduring or longevity. Right ?

As we find in Job, " years should teach wisdom but do not always, youth can speak , for it is God who giveth understanding (to whom He will ?)

Agree totally. And as Christ made the Church “failure proof” in Matthew 16, we at least know that the “True Church” must be able to visibly trace its existence all the way back to Christ.

Yes, understand. But also remember you can only disagree with [the Church] to the point to that which she dogmatizes, declares.

Sure. That’s the Church actually exercising her role as the preserver of the truth. You’re free to have opinions about anything other than the deposit of faith. That’s non-negotiable. “If you disagree, you’re not a Christian.” And thank God!

Clement of Rome: “…”
John Chrysostom: “…"

Right on. You confess to God! Interestingly, through these men, as they were both clergy and certainly took confessions (I am a huge fan of Chrysostom)

Origen talks of voluntary confession… Did not see anything for “forgiveness of sins” ,as in one being in Christ stead.

I’m 99% sure that confession must be voluntary done, otherwise how could it be valid? So of course Origen is right. And you probably don’t see Origen spell out the full doctrine of penance in that one spot because why would he? If he’s talking about confession, he’s talking to someone who already believes in penance (like, say, a Christian).

Is being filled with the spirit, as during Pentecost or as Paul says to be continually filled, an "eek "measurement or qualification ?

Not at all! However, saying that this will consistently yield a charismatic speaker is hooey. Not everyone gets that gift, quite obviously. And if your Church service (Mass) is built around Christ’s sacrifice (The Eucharist) rather than a sermon (homily) it’s not a problem.

Entertaining and engaging are two really two opposite poles, especially if you mean spiritually engaging.

Respectfully disagree. I must be engaged with the entertainment in order to be entertained.

Yet is it wrong to admit that sometimes the Spirit is more engaging than at other times ? Is the Wind of God always gaged at !2.2 miles per hour ?

Sometimes we may “feel” it more. But I’m certain that’s more an issue of our personal attitudes than the radiance of God. The Mass is always holy. If I’m not “feeling it”, that’s my fault.

I know.But as T is suggesting , sometimes it is evident that the homily is of secondary importance, that the Word in the Host has preeminence to His actual Word.

Because “the Word” in the host is the actual “Word”.

John 1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The “Word” in the Greek is “Logos”. It’s Jesus Christ. And He’s actually in the Eucharist. So yes, in a Catholic Mass, “The Word” per John 1:1 is the very center of our worship. Everything else in our beautiful liturgy is secondary.

As a Catholic, I’m not sure that this fact can be stressed enough.

 

[Tomyris]

I think the primary reason is that these “other churches” contradict each other continuously in their teaching. Thus if the Spirit really is at work in all of them, it must be lying to most of them.

We know the Spirit can’t lie, so something’s amiss in Protestantism.

This caught my eye. There are so many statements I can’t hope to answer more than a few of them.

First, the Holy Spirit is HE, not IT, although I will grant you that the Greek noun is neuter. In English the use of IT implies He is not a Person.

Secondly, your logic is fallacious. He may have spoken and they aren’t listening. Or He may have not spoken to them on a point where they think He has spoken to them.

Thirdly, there are many things Protestants hold in common. There are also things that we are free to disagree on, and do, and hold to only contingently, as our best understanding of Scripture, rather than as authoritatively declared by some authority.

 

[JonNC]

I think the primary reason is that these “other churches” contradict each other continuously in their teaching. Thus if the Spirit really is at work in all of them, it must be lying to most of them.

.

That’s not what the Catholic catechism says.
** 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 **
The Catholic Church here seems to teach that the Spirit is guiding and using all Christian communities. It goes as far as to say they are a means of salvation!

We know the Spirit can’t lie, so something’s amiss in Protestantism.

Clearly, then, there is something amiss in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions as well, since they have contradicted each other’s teachings for twice as long.

The failure of Christians to properly understand His guidance does not mean He is leading anyone into false teaching, much less that He is lying.

"We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. ". 1 Cor. 13:12

Jon

 

[Wannano]

This caught my eye. There are so many statements I can’t hope to answer more than a few of them.

First, the Holy Spirit is HE, not IT, although I will grant you that the Greek noun is neuter. In English the use of IT implies He is not a Person.

Secondly, your logic is fallacious. He may have spoken and they aren’t listening. Or He may have not spoken to them on a point where they think He has spoken to them.

Thirdly, there are many things Protestants hold in common. There are also things that we are free to disagree on, and do, and hold to only contingently, as our best understanding of Scripture, rather than as authoritatively declared by some authority.

 

[Wannano]

That’s not what the Catholic catechism says.
** 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 **
The Catholic Church here seems to teach that the Spirit is guiding and using all Christian communities. It goes as far as to say they are a means of salvation!

Clearly, then, there is something amiss in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions as well, since they have contradicted each other’s teachings for twice as long.

The failure of Christians to properly understand His guidance does not mean He is leading anyone into false teaching, much less that He is lying.

"We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. ". 1 Cor. 13:12

Jon

 

[Vonsalza]

[The Spirit] may have spoken and they aren’t listening. Or He may have not spoken to them on a point where they think He has spoken to them.

Thirdly, there are many things Protestants hold in common. There are also things that we are free to disagree on, and do, and hold to only contingently, as our best understanding of Scripture, rather than as authoritatively declared by some authority.

But how does a protestant tell the difference? Baptism is a particularly thorny issue in Protestantism.

Person A: “Per the word of God as revealed by His Spirit, baptism is unquestionably required for the salvation of the soul!”
Person B: “Baptism is not required for salvation; for it is a work! And we all know by the Spirit, salvation is by grace alone!”

Many, many times (ex-protestant, here) I’ve personally seen both types of protestants declare these things with the fire of “true belief” in their eyes. By the Spirit of God, they knows these things to be absolutely true!

So how do we finally solve this protestant ambiguity within basic and critically important soteriology once-and-for-all? It sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out…

For the first 15 centuries of Christianity, we were all pretty certain they did.

That’s not what the Catholic catechism says.
** 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276 **
The Catholic Church here seems to teach that the Spirit is guiding and using all Christian communities. It goes as far as to say they are a means of salvation!

Respectfully, you need to re-read that passage. I left it in my reply for just that reason.

No doubt there are varying levels of truth present within each of the many, many forms of Protestantism - as they are derived from the Catholic Church. The Church is also quick to point out that Protestantism lacks the fullness of the truth. Apropos, the label “separated brethren”.

Clearly, then, there is something amiss in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions as well, since they have contradicted each other’s teachings for twice as long.

While the rumblings of the Latin-Greek schism began in the 11th century, they weren’t readily identifiable as fully separate until the 14th or maybe even the 15th century with the Christian-then-Muslim sacks of Constantinople. The reformation didn’t really “grow legs” until the late 16th century. So “twice as long” may be less than correct.

And with the lifting of the excommunications and the recognition of sacraments (and validity of succession) experienced between the RC and EO, I sometimes like to fantasize that they’ll finish their steady progress of reunification during the course of my life. A man can hope, right?

Either way, I think we can rightly conclude that if the Church produced 3 semi-separate communions within its first 1500 years, then literally thousands-upon-thousands of rivals after that, then:
Whatever occurred in the 16th century in Christianity was a catalyst for exponential fundamental disagreement and subsequent division; as a simple matter of fact.

And what occurred? “The Protestant Reformation”.

The failure of Christians to properly understand His guidance does not mean He is leading anyone into false teaching, much less that He is lying.

And back to the million dollar question: How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?

Again, it sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out… For the first 15 centuries of Christianity, we were all pretty certain they did.

 

[Tomyris]

But how does a protestant tell the difference? Baptism is a particularly thorny issue in Protestantism.

Person A: “Per the word of God as revealed by His Spirit, baptism is unquestionably required for the salvation of the soul!”
Person B: “Baptism is not required for salvation; for it is a work! And we all know by the Spirit, salvation is by grace alone!”

Many, many times (ex-protestant, here) I’ve personally seen both types of protestants declare these things with the fire of “true belief” in their eyes. By the Spirit of God, they knows these things to be absolutely true!

So how do we finally solve this protestant ambiguity within basic and critically important soteriology once-and-for-all? It sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out…

I suppose I could ask my pastor. I have one. And he has at least 3 years of seminary training after a bachelor’s degree if not more, plus twenty some years of experience in the pastorate. He was screened by other people to determine if he was fit for the pastorate, and then screened by my church and prayerfully considered before we extended a call to him.

But you don’t factor that it. It seems you think Protestant clergy at best are boasting self-centered, self-authenticated morons with a snake in one hand and a Bible under the other arm and every other word is Hallelujah. Your contempt is noted.

Where I come from clergy are highly professional, as in most Protestant denominations. You seem to have had a sad experience as a Protestant that way, which explains your view, I suppose. But you should know better.

Respectfully,

Seriously? I am glad you told us you respect Protestants. I would never have guessed.

While the rumblings of the Latin-Greek schism began in the 11th century, they weren’t readily identifiable as fully separate until the 14th or maybe even the 15th century with the Christian-then-Muslim sacks of Constantinople.

Here once again you display ignorance and arrogance. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica on the schism:

Schism of 1054, also called East–West Schism, event that precipitated the final separation between the Eastern Christian churches (led by the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius) and the Western Church (led by Pope Leo IX). The mutual excommunications by the Pope and the Patriarch that year became a watershed in church history. The excommunications were not lifted until 1965, when Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, following their historic meeting in Jerusalem in 1964, presided over simultaneous ceremonies that revoked the excommunication decrees.

The relation of the Byzantine Church to the Roman may be described as one of growing estrangement from the 5th to the 11th century. In the early church three bishops stood forth prominently, principally from the political eminence of the cities in which they ruled—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The transfer of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople and the later eclipse of Alexandria and Antioch as battlegrounds of Islam and Christianity promoted the importance of Constantinople. Concurrently, the theological calmness of the West, in contrast to the often violent theological disputes that troubled the Eastern patriarchates, strengthened the position of the Roman popes, who made increasing claims to preeminence. But this preeminence, or rather the Roman idea of what was involved in it, was never acknowledged in the East. To press it upon the Eastern patriarchs was to prepare the way for separation; to insist upon it in times of irritation was to cause a schism.

There weren’t 'faint rumblings in 1054. There was full blown schism. It would be nice if you used facts to back up your case.

The reformation didn’t really “grow legs” until the late 16th century. So “twice as long” may be less than correct.

You seem to have no idea of the intellectual climate in Europe before the Reformation. None whatsoever. Just another convert trying to out-Catholic the Catholics, I suppose.

And back to the million dollar question: How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?

Again, it sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out… For the first 15 centuries of Christianity, we were all pretty certain they did.

As I said, it is a 2 cent question. And sarcasm does not exactly help you out.

I could explain how we regard apostolic succession, but I don’t want to waste my time.

Good-bye.

 

[Magdalena59]

But how does a protestant tell the difference? Baptism is a particularly thorny issue in Protestantism.

Person A: “Per the word of God as revealed by His Spirit, baptism is unquestionably required for the salvation of the soul!”
Person B: “Baptism is not required for salvation; for it is a work! And we all know by the Spirit, salvation is by grace alone!”

Many, many times (ex-protestant, here) I’ve personally seen both types of protestants declare these things with the fire of “true belief” in their eyes. By the Spirit of God, they knows these things to be absolutely true!

Agree. Baptism is a very thorny subject. In my own personal experience that is the very issue that led me to realize there had to be an authority somewhere that decided these very important issues.

I had four different denominations telling me something different about baptism. Around and around my mind went: whether I was baptized, whether I should be baptized, whether I could be baptized, the right way to be baptized, who is allowed to baptize…

And back to the million dollar question: How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?

Exactly. That is the question.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14561635]But how does a protestant tell the difference? Baptism is a particularly thorny issue in Protestantism.

I don’t know, because I don’t know a “Protestant”. Baptism was never a “thorny issue” for me growing up Lutheran. It still isn’t as an Anglican.
I suspect for a Baptist it isn’t a thorny issue either.

The fallacy of your argument is the presumption that protestant is a thing beyond a general category based on a termed coined because of a political event. From my perspective, I am much closer in belief to Catholicism than to most western non-Catholic communions. Always have been. I’m not confused by the existence of Baptists, Calvinists, or any other group. So the question of how does one tell the difference is irrelevant. Baptists are no more confused by Lutherans than they are by Catholics.

Many, many times (ex-protestant, here) I’ve personally seen both types of protestants declare these things with the fire of “true belief” in their eyes. By the Spirit of God, they knows these things to be absolutely true!

So how do we finally solve this protestant ambiguity within basic and critically important soteriology once-and-for-all? It sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out…

For the first 15 centuries of Christianity, we were all pretty certain they did.

And they still do. But even their heirs do not agree on everything.

Respectfully, you need to re-read that passage. I left it in my reply for just that reason.

No doubt there are varying levels of truth present within each of the many, many forms of Protestantism - as they are derived from the Catholic Church. The Church is also quick to point out that Protestantism lacks the fullness of the truth. Apropos, the label “separated brethren”.

the fact that the CCC states that all truth comes from the CC is to be expected. That wasn’t the point. You claimed that the Spirit, essentially, is either lying to different communions, or He really isn’t guiding them. Of course He is. The question is who actually hears Him properly, and the conflict on that issue is a lot older than the Reformation.

While the rumblings of the Latin-Greek schism began in the 11th century, they weren’t readily identifiable as fully separate until the 14th or maybe even the 15th century with the Christian-then-Muslim sacks of Constantinople. The reformation didn’t really “grow legs” until the late 16th century. So “twice as long” may be less than correct.

Picking at nits. When did the mutual excommunications take place? When did Michael I Cerularius close the Latin churches in Constantinople? If anything, the growing schism had roots well before 1053 and 1054.

And with the lifting of the excommunications and the recognition of sacraments (and validity of succession) experienced between the RC and EO, I sometimes like to fantasize that they’ll finish their steady progress of reunification during the course of my life. A man can hope, right?

First, not all EO churches recognize Latin orders, and therefore, sacraments. While probably not universal, Anglicans generally recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, a lack of reciprocity notwithstanding.

Either way, I think we can rightly conclude that if the Church produced 3 semi-separate communions within its first 1500 years, then literally thousands-upon-thousands of rivals after that, then:
Whatever occurred in the 16th century in Christianity was a catalyst for exponential fundamental disagreement and subsequent division; as a simple matter of fact.

And what occurred? “The Protestant Reformation”.

“Semi-separate?” Please. You can’t receive at an EO church anymore than I can. There is nothing “semi” about it.
That exponential fundamental disagreement lies squarely at the gates of St. Peter’s Basilica as much as it does the church in Wittenburg.

And back to the million dollar question: How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?

Generally, he isn’t concerned with what another communion teaches, anymore than what the CC teaches. Again, the fallacy that somehow “Protestant” exists or ever existed as a singular entity.

Again, it sure would be nice if the Apostles named heirs to continue in their authority after they all died out… For the first 15 centuries of Christianity, we were all pretty certain they did.

The problem is even they can’t agree who has authority.

Jon

 

[Magdalena59]

Baptism was never a “thorny issue” for me growing up Lutheran. It still isn’t as an Anglican.
I suspect for a Baptist it isn’t a thorny issue either.

The fallacy of your argument is the presumption that protestant is a thing beyond a general category based on a termed coined because of a political event. From my perspective, I am much closer in belief to Catholicism than to most western non-Catholic communions. Always have been. I’m not confused by the existence of Baptists, Calvinists, or any other group. So the question of how does one tell the difference is irrelevant. Baptists are no more confused by Lutherans than they are by Catholics.

Anglicans and Lutherans have similar beliefs as far as baptism but there are many denominations who would not accept your baptism as valid.

This is just from my personal experience in protestantism. I found that those who grew up in a one particular denomination did not seem to be bothered by other protestant denominations as long as they were content where they were and didn’t really look into what others taught but if they should look into it or dialogue with each other it is usually a matter of, “well, this is what we believe the Bible says” debate and “agree to disagree” as I was told, because “when we get to heaven we will find out we were all wrong about somethings and right about others, so don’t worry about it”, again as I was told.

When many poorly catechized Catholics, or those who have had no religious teaching at all venture into the protestant denominations they find it to be a very confusing place. I was told by two denominations that since I was baptized when I was an infant, that was fine, but then told by another denomination I wasn’t baptized and needed to be baptized as an adult but it really didn’t mean anything, it was just a show of my faith and then told by another denomination I had to be baptized as an adult in order to be cleansed of all my past sins and be saved and I would have to be re-baptized if I wasn’t concentrating at the time. How would I know who to believe? I didn’t know.

Each denomination was claiming that the other one was wrong and they were right.

The problem is even they can’t agree who has authority.

Mathew 18:17 tells us to take it to the Church, that means God gave us a Church as somewhere to go when there are disputes. There has to be a foundation and pillar of truth and 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us it is the Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Magdalena59;14562006]Anglicans and Lutherans have similar beliefs as far as baptism but there are many denominations who would not accept your baptism as valid

Indeed. It is also very similar to the Catholic belief about Baptism, so those folks wouldn’t recognize yours either. So, again, the concept of "Protestant " isn’t relevant.

This is just from my personal experience in protestantism. I found that those who grew up in a one particular denomination did not seem to be bothered by other protestant denominations as long as they were content where they were and didn’t really look into what others taught but if they should look into it or dialogue with each other it is usually a matter of, “well, this is what we believe the Bible says” debate and “agree to disagree” as I was told, because “when we get to heaven we will find out we were all wrong about somethings and right about others, so don’t worry about it”, again as I was told.

When many poorly catechized Catholics, or those who have had no religious teaching at all venture into the protestant denominations they find it to be a very confusing place. I was told by two denominations that since I was baptized when I was an infant, that was fine, but then told by another denomination I wasn’t baptized and needed to be baptized as an adult but it really didn’t mean anything, it was just a show of my faith and then told by another denomination I had to be baptized as an adult in order to be cleansed of all my past sins and be saved and I would have to be re-baptized if I wasn’t concentrating at the time. How would I know who to believe? I didn’t know.

Those same folks, or a poorly taught Calvinist, would be equally confused in a Catholic church. How would he know who to believe?

Each denomination was claiming that the other one was wrong and they were right.

That includes the Catholic Church.

Mathew 18:17 tells us to take it to the Church, that means God gave us a Church as somewhere to go when there are disputes. There has to be a foundation and pillar of truth and 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us it is the Church.

Agreed

Jon

 

[Vonsalza]

I suppose I could ask my pastor. I have one. And he has at least 3 years of seminary training after a bachelor’s degree if not more, plus twenty some years…

Respectfully, the pastor across the street is probably equally credentialed. And still disagrees with your pastor. The more major “schools” of protestant thought all have their own seminaries with their own PhD programs (just like the Catholics do). Their graduating doctors just express their disagreement with other protestant PhD holders in more technical language.

The question remains unanswered, “How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?”

There weren’t 'faint rumblings in 1054. There was full blown schism. It would be nice if you used facts to back up your case.

I’m sorry you’ve taken a hostile tone.

In Orthodoxy, one Bishop doesn’t necessarily speak authoritatively for the others. They operate as a college in council to serve the process of making church-wide decisions.

So if there was strife between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, from the Orthodox view, the issue was largely pertaining to Constantinople, not the entire Greek-oriented Church.

Enjoy this article on the schism:newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

You seem to have no idea of the intellectual climate in Europe before the Reformation. None whatsoever. Just another convert trying to out-Catholic the Catholics, I suppose.

Again, sorry for the hostility.

But most secular historians agree that if the political climate of central Europe didn’t exist as it did, the Reformation would likely have never been successful.
The German princes of the HRE, along with their emperors were chaffing with the Pope over who had the authority to appoint Bishops within the empire. We also had Charles IX of France who was happy to court the French Huguenots until his bids for the Crown of France was realized. He then realigned fully with the ancient Church.

In other times, the princes of Christendom would have rode out and challenged any heresy in their own lands and demanded that heretics repented, left or faced the sword - regardless how we may feel about the appropriateness of the response. Much of Arianism didn’t just “fall out of vogue”. It fled before the rumble of an approaching Roman legion.

“The Reformation” by Dr. Diarmaid MacColloch is a master-work on the topic (but a very, VERY long read). I recommend.

As I said, it is a 2 cent question. And sarcasm does not exactly help you out.

Absolutely no sarcasm intended. The question is honestly asked. “How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?”

I genuinely think you guys don’t really have an answer. Otherwise all those thousands of other factions wouldn’t exist.

 

[Magdalena59]

Indeed. It is also very similar to the Catholic belief about Baptism, so those folks wouldn’t recognize yours either. So, again, the concept of "Protestant " isn’t relevant.

Those same folks, or a poorly taught Calvinist, would be equally confused in a Catholic church. How would he know who to believe?

That includes the Catholic Church.

Agreed

Jon

You’re right. They did not accept my baptism. That was part of the problem. Exactly.

Protestantism doesn’t just include mainline denominations that are similar to the Catholic church but also many other denominations that are not considered mainline, so in that essence because of so many different denominations, protestantism is relevant. And baptism is just one issue. It just happens to be the issue brought up.

The way one would know what to believe in the Catholic church is through the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains a full description of the tenets of the Catholic faith. The faith that is founded on the apostles.

What is found in the catechism are the essential and basic beliefs in Catholicism. It defines the points that bring unity for Catholics.

God bless.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t know, because I don’t know a “Protestant”. Baptism was never a “thorny issue” for me growing up Lutheran. It still isn’t as an Anglican.

That’s a move in the positive direction. Just one more step and you’re back to the ancient Church!

the fact that the CCC states that all truth comes from the CC is to be expected. That wasn’t the point.

Its fun having the catechism interpreted for me by an Anglican.

You claimed that the Spirit, essentially, is either lying to different communions, or He really isn’t guiding them. Of course He is. The question is who actually hears Him properly, and the conflict on that issue is a lot older than the Reformation.

Fair enough! So who has it wrong on Baptism? The Baptists or the Church of Christ? And how can we show this as to remove a heresy from Christianity that’s as old as the reformation and thereby encourage doctrinal unity? Serious question.

Picking at nits.

An Orthodox Bishop only has dominion over his see. Plenty of Greek Churches were pro-Rome. Check out the link to the Eastern Schism in the previous post. It’s a good read.

“Semi-separate?” Please.

“Semi-” because in you view, you seem to exclude entirely the Oriental communions. Much of the same kind of ecumenism shown by the Catholic Church to the EO is being shown by the EO to various communities in the OO. Literally the first thing Google gave me. svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today

The lines of separation between the ancient, apostolic faiths are not as clear as some would like them to be,** fortunately**.

That exponential fundamental disagreement lies squarely at the gates of St. Peter’s Basilica as much as it does the church in Wittenburg.

Sure. And in a further degradation of the Church’s ability to promulgate the truth, the question went from “What, exactly, does the ‘primacy’ of the Roman seat mean?” to “Why even have an authoritative priesthood?”

One might guess the next “reformation” will be “Why even have religion if God really is ‘good’?”. I think we see that today.

The problem is even they can’t agree who has authority.

But they did, John. Your local Bishop, who has empowered your local priest.

 

[JonNC]

You’re right. They did not accept my baptism. That was part of the problem. Exactly.

Protestantism doesn’t just include mainline denominations that are similar to the Catholic church but also many other denominations that are not considered mainline, so in that essence because of so many different denominations, protestantism is relevant. And baptism is just one issue. It just happens to be the issue brought up.

The way one would know what to believe in the Catholic church is through the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains a full description of the tenets of the Catholic faith. The faith that is founded on the apostles.

What is found in the catechism are the essential and basic beliefs in Catholicism. It defines the points that bring unity for Catholics.

God bless.

Protestant doesn’t “include” anything. It isn’t a structure or institution. So, therefore , it isn’t relevant.

There’s a way to know the Lutheran tenants, too. Read the Book of Concord. A confessional Lutheran would tell you it is the faith of the apostles. And Orthodox Christian will tell you their’s is the faith of the apostles.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14562116]That’s a move in the positive direction. Just one more step and you’re back to the ancient Church!

Yeah, I thought Pope Benedict was very positive.

Its fun having the catechism interpreted for me by an Anglican.

If you’ll go back and look, I was very deliberate and specific to use the phrase “seems to teach”,
**The Catholic Church here seems to teach that the Spirit is guiding and using all Christian communities. It goes as far as to say they are a means of salvation! **. I’ve been here a good long time, and have often experienced folks telling me what I believe. I endeavor not to do the same. If my understanding of CCC 819 is faulty, I will stand for correction.

Fair enough! So who has it wrong on Baptism? The Baptists or the Church of Christ? And how can we show this as to remove a heresy from Christianity that’s as old as the reformation and thereby encourage doctrinal unity? Serious question.

You can’t, and neither can I. We have on our side scripture, the early teachings of the Church and the Fathers.

An Orthodox Bishop only has dominion over his see. Plenty of Greek Churches were pro-Rome. Check out the link to the Eastern Schism in the previous post. It’s a good read.

And the Bishop of Rome, according to Nicaea, over his. I am “pro-Rome” in many ways, but I am not pro-universal jurisdiction. I think the vast majority of those bishops would agree.

“Semi-” because in you view, you seem to exclude entirely the Oriental communions. Much of the same kind of ecumenism shown by the Catholic Church to the EO is being shown by the EO to various communities in the OO. Literally the first thing Google gave me. svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today

The lines of separation between the ancient, apostolic faiths are not as clear as some would like them to be,** fortunately**.

They are actually far too wide for my liking. You asked earlier how to get rid of some of the heresies. Unity of East and West could go a long way.

Sure. And in a further degradation of the Church’s ability to promulgate the truth, the question went from “What, exactly, does the ‘primacy’ of the Roman seat mean?” to “Why even have an authoritative priesthood?”

You’ll have to speak to those who think that way. as I said before, that was not the stance of the Evangelical Catholics in Germany.

One might guess the next “reformation” will be “Why even have religion if God really is ‘good’?”. I think we see that today.

sounds like the Catholic liberation theology to me. As you can see, we are probably more alike in our thinking than different. When Pope Benedict spoke to the Lutherans in Germany, he implied exactly this, that the liturgical, sacramental traditions are closer than we think.

But they did, John. Your local Bishop, who has empowered your local priest.

Indeed. and yours.

Jon

 

[Wannano]

QUOTE=Vonsalza;14562093]

solutely no sarcasm intended.

he question is honestly asked. “How does a protestant know that he’s understanding the Spirit’s guidance more properly than the disagreeing protestant across the street?”

I genuinely think you guys don’t really have an answer. Otherwise all those thousands of other factions wouldn’t exist.

/QUOTE]

I think this is an elementary approach that really has no bearing on reality. Like Jon points out there is no such thing as a “Protestant” but you keep on insisting that there is. So ask yourself, how does a Catholic priest know that he is understanding the Spirits guidance more properly (whatever that is supposed to mean!!)than the disagreeing priest in the next neighboring community? Don’t bother trying to tell me that there are no disagreements among priests over the issue of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I have had too much exposure to this very thing to be buffaloed into believing it doesn’t exist in the Catholic realm.

 

[Magdalena59]

QUOTE=Vonsalza;14562093]

solutely no sarcasm intended. /QUOTE]

I think this is an elementary approach that really has no bearing on reality. Like Jon points out there is no such thing as a “Protestant” but you keep on insisting that there is. So ask yourself, how does a Catholic priest know that he is understanding the Spirits guidance more properly (whatever that is supposed to mean!!)than the disagreeing priest in the next neighboring community? Don’t bother trying to tell me that there are no disagreements among priests over the issue of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I have had too much exposure to this very thing to be buffaloed into believing it doesn’t exist in the Catholic realm.

Their argument would end with what the tenets of the Catholic church teach. There could be priests who disagree but in the end they would follow our Lord’s instruction in the book of Matthew, take it to the Church, so whoever is not lining their teaching up with the Catholic church would then need to do that.