My protestant friends

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=grandfather;8988815]
It is not my claim. If one asks the local Baptist preacher, as I have, or the minister at the Church of the Firstborn, what is the authority they claim to do what they do, they will tell you it is scripture. The common denominator in all of the disparate separated denmominations is the Bible they hold to be the word of God and base their doctrines on.
Then I misunderstood when you said that sola scriptura leaves no room for the Church.
They all believe their beliefs are Bible based, derived from scripture alone. It does not matter what the early Protestant confessions state. It is the results that matter, tangible reality and that is what is know as denominationalism, thousands of groups doctrinally separated from one another.
Everything that happens is caused. Denominationalism is attributable to a cause. Since Christ commands unity of His followers disunity is not a good thing. Its cause is some error of the past where the group took the wrong turn and went off track and then disintegrated into divisions and factions. Luther complained about it before he died.
All Lutherans complain about that.
Many shall come in my name. Logic says that all these teachers who teach conflicting dogmas can not all be right. The Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, Assemblies of God, etc., etc. etc., ad infintum can not all teach truth. They all claim scripture as their “sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged”.
What went wrong?
well, first, they misread the scriptures. Secondly, ISTM they fail to look at what the Church has taught - the creeds, the early councils. You mentioned iconoclasm, as an example, Lutherans reject it, and accept the 7th council.
If there are teachers, who appoints them? By what authority do they presume to teach in the name of God? Can I ordain myself to this role? I can read the Bible as well as you or anyone else. Where did all these teachers come from who are out their professing to be pastors, shepherds of souls, ministers of the gospel? If their doctrines are different from those constantly held and passed along from the beginning, by what authority do they deny ancient dogma?
You’ll have to ask them. But I can tell you that, for example, it has not been taught constantly from the beginning that the pope has universal jurisdiction, nor infallibility ex cathedra. If, for example, the ast can be accused/praised for anything, it can be that they have not “developed” doctrine.

Jon
 
=grandfather;8989986]
It doesn’t. If the church had any authority among those who believe this false doctrine you would not have thousands of denominations that sprung from it. Authority imposes disipline. It teaches matter of factly.
I’m confused. A post ago you said you didn’t claim this.
And the irony is that Luther unleashed it.
Unleashed what? I don’t agree much with Calvin, Zwingli, et al, but I believe they were intelligent individuals. I just don’t think they were lemmings following Luther, but when one says “he unleashed it”, that’s what it sounds like to me.
All the various denominations and nondenominations, version after version that have sprung from one another going back to the Reformation say of one another “they misread scripture”. Don’t you get it? There is no authority to say who reads or misreads. When I ask my Baptist minister friend how he knows his doctrine is correct he says the Bible tells him so. That is the authority. It is the Bible and him. If you disgree with him you misread scripture, because the Bible is plainly understood. He understands it properly and if you disagree with him you do not. He says so.
Don’t you see? This is no different than those who claim Tradition and scripture, be they in communion with Rome or not. But you seemed to overlook what i said about the difference here that I mentioned regarding Tradition. I’ve never looked at it as “The Bible and me”, probably because I was never taught that that is what sola scriptura is.
Denominationalism is reality. It is not theological concepts, but it is derived or sourced in the theological errors of those who spawned it.
So is schism.

continued
 
Doctrine is developed. It does develop. Our understanding grows. Jesus said there was much He wanted to tell His apostles, but they could not bear it “YET”. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, people. Jesus did not say He would give us scripture to lead us into all truth. He said God the Holy Spirit would do that until the end of time with people and the ones He was speaking to were His apsotles. That is why apsotolic succession is important.
But it doesn’t develop without councils - truly ecumenical councils, of which there hasn’t been one since before 1054. But you are right - the Sprit does lead us, and i believe apostolic succession is important, too.
JPII said the Church has no power to ordain women. This was to settle a controversy so the Church could be in peace. It is now settled matter. The Church both east and west always looked to Rome for guidance when there was controversy. The iconoclasts were an example. I gave that example not, because you might agree or diagree with it, but to demonstrate the history of eastern bishops recognizing the authority of Rome in their appeals to Rome to settle their arguments.
JPII reiterated something the Church has always taught. This wasn’t development. The eastern bishops appealing to Rome did not establish universal jurisdiction.
The idea of infallibility comes from the scriptures. We need to know the teachings of the Church are true. Jesus’s promises to Peter guarantee them in every century. Declaring it to be dogma does not change what is and has always been. Peter heold the keys before the dogma was proclaimed. The Trinity was three persons with one nature before the definition or word formula was devised.
This not only stretches scripture, but also Tradition.
Protestantism lacks this human, buck stops here, highest authority, final appeal, settle it once and for all voice.
Frankly, I’m not worried about protestantism. But I would agree that the lack of a hierarchy has hurt Lutheranism. So, which final appeal is the real one? Rome? The East? You see, this one high authority is split by schism, and this may be more of a detriment to Christian unity than denominationalism.
It instead has the Bible and the sundry voices who read it with different minds. The resulting division of thousands of versions of church was inevitable. There is never any settled matter on any doctrine. Anyone can come along in any age and proclaim a new doctrine that contradicts what has always been the faith. That happens all the time. You and Luther believe babies should be baptized. In modern times a groups sprang up saying this is wrong. It does not matter that history says it was always done by all Christians of all ages. Someone with a Bible said it is wrong. Nothing is ever settled. Truth is unknowable.
What they say doesn’t matter to me, in the sense that they speak for their own beliefs, beliefs I am not positioned to defend.
Some Christians claim that baptism is not a sacrament and there are no sacraments. They believe the Bible, or claim to. Some say there are two sacraments. Some say they are not sure, that Holy Orders might be necessary and a sacrament. I knew a Lutheran pastor who told me years ago that his synod or group argues about this vehemently. How are they supposed to know?
It is a debate within Lutheranism.
If ministers of this religion can’t agree and do not know what is a sacrament and what is not, why do they not know? What authority do they appeal to? If their particualr Church has authority why are they confused about something as basic as a sacrament?
I would contend that, were unity on the verge, this is an issue that is solved in the confessions, and the history of the Church.
You claim this Church has authority to teach, but in reality if it did you would not have the chaos and religious anarchy of denominationalism, the historical reality of endless division traceable to and within the Reformation. The authority to teach is established by Christ’s promises and contained within His Church.
Let’s remember the roots of these denominations - they all have their roots in Rome! Rome is not off the hook for any of this.
I believe you belong to that Church through your baptism, are part of His body, but you are in rebellion.
Are you in rebellion too? Since 1054?
We can argue about it for another several centuries and nothing will be fixed. As long as we remain divided the forces of evil will grow in power and souls will suffer.
And here is the final issue, isn’t it? Our communions have been arguing for several centuries, but in these last decades, progress has been made. I believe Pope Benedict is right, that unity will come from God. Hopefully, both of our communions will be open to earing the Spirit.

Jon
 
PJM,

This is a Catholic interpretation, and I would expect such a response on a Catholic forum. In fact, I hear it all the time; and I respect your right to hold such beliefs.

However, the CC’s assertion of authority is not consistent with the Orthodox Church or the rest of Christendom.

The CC sends mixed messages. We, Non-Catholics, are told we are part of the Mystical Body of Christ; yet you reject us from the Eucharistic Celebration----even though we have been Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (a Baptism the CC accepts as valid); and even though we believe in the Real Presence and “discern the Body.”

But you don’t stop with excluding us from the “Catholic” Eucharist, you declare our orders invalid/illicit and therefore, claim we do not actually celebrate the Holy Eucharist. That would mean God rejects the Eucharist prayers of our Priests and that it is all in vain.

That’s really as far as I want to go with this on this thread, as I’ve had the “authority” discussion many times. I realize this is a Catholic forum and the authority issue is always on the table.

Agreed. 👍

Anna
You believe in it (the Eucharist) and I have Lutheran customers in my store who also believe in the Real Presence. Who am I to say? God only says. And I believe He looks into every heart and sees what is there.

I know the CC teaches you don’t have valid orders and I never disagree with the CC. But, I know many holy Christians and I truly believe that God does as well. After all, He is way better than me. 🙂

The reason you may not receive the Eucharist is because you are not Catholic. Not because of your baptism which is, of course, valid. You are not in full communion with the CC and that is why you cannot receive.

I sat in the back pew for many a Mass before I was received into the Church. And, honestly, I was fine with that. Then again, I knew from my very first Mass that I would become Catholic so maybe that gives one patience.
 
You believe in it (the Eucharist) and I have Lutheran customers in my store who also believe in the Real Presence. Who am I to say? God only says. And I believe He looks into every heart and sees what is there.

I know the CC teaches you don’t have valid orders and I never disagree with the CC. But, I know many holy Christians and I truly believe that God does as well. After all, He is way better than me. 🙂

The reason you may not receive the Eucharist is because you are not Catholic. Not because of your baptism which is, of course, valid. You are not in full communion with the CC and that is why you cannot receive.

I sat in the back pew for many a Mass before I was received into the Church. And, honestly, I was fine with that. Then again, I knew from my very first Mass that I would become Catholic so maybe that gives one patience.
Miriam,

I appreciate the gentleness of your post. 🙂 I realize one must be in Communion with Rome to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. I was just venting a bit.

I see our Rector, a Priest committed to faithfully and truthfully proclaiming the Gospel, uncompromising in Christian Orthodoxy, devoted to the service of our Lord. I cannot believe God would refuse the Eucharistic Prayers he prays; or all the prayers offered corporately through the Liturgy, which is almost identical to the Catholic Liturgy. Anyway, don’t want to get sidetracked on the authority issue again. I’ve had that discussion so many times. So, I’ll stop here. 🙂

Peace,
Anna
 
=grandfather;8990399]
And all those who founded new denominations thereafter were the same. The point is not what you think of them. The point is they are all part of the division begun with Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura. Whatever you were taught about what it is supposed to mean is not relevant to the practical historical results.
Of course the point isn’t what you or I think of them, except to say that in your approach, one is almost required to assume that Calvin, or Zwingli, would have remained loyal Catholics, had it not been for Luther and sola scriptura. I just find that unrealistic.

Jon
 
=grandfather;8990625]
Does the scripture say Jesus gave the keys to His Kingdom to councils, or Peter?
To the Church, and Peter was not in charge at the council in Acts.
He did indeed, in his papal authority. If you read the appeals of the eastern bishops the language shows they believed the pope to have the authority to settle their controversies.
That’s not universal jurisdiction.
You might be right. Which is the bigger evil does not make the other evil go away.
Agreed. Division is division, and against Christ’s call.
But your question of which is the real authority is for yourself. If there is a schism, two groups split, then one group split itself apart from the truth. If the Orthodox claim the authority of one apostle or another as having established their ancient Church and the Catholics Peter, and one is trying to figure out which to belong, after studying scripture they have to come to their decision.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
True. What you agree on with them all is sola scriptura, the authority of scripture to determine doctrine. That does not mean you have to defend their doctrines.
And even the way the view sola scriptura is different, in many cases. So, I don’t always agree with them on the issue.
What about an ecumenical council? What bishops would you send?
Which one would be invited?
Oh, please Jon. You can’t blame Rome for Luther’s theology. I do believe however that the blame for the Reformation and denominationalism is sin. Luther suffer horribly from scruples. The decadence and opulence of the hiearchy in Italy scandlaized him rightly. But had he not been driven by scruples the response would have been different. It was the sins of Catholics for a hundred years before him that set the stage for the disaster. The Catholic hierarchy, Alexander VI, and the corruption of the age are as much or more to blame than the protagonist.
Good. We agree on shared blame.
How do you know?
When Peter preached and 3,000 were converted it was, because the demons were manifested and dominated. The Jews were drawn to the promise ahead and driven by the destroying chariots behind. They were led by a pilar of fire and the cloud shielded them from behind.
Unity will be established when the mask is torn from the face of evil in our fallen culture and revealed for what it is. At the same time God’s grace and light will be evident. We will all choose at that time, truth and light or death and darkness. It is getting closer.
Pray for the day.

Jon
 
Even the Catholic Church knows they had problems so no sense blaming it all on Calvin, and Lutheran (who never wanted to leave the Catholic church)

you can read about it here in the Churches own words, it goes back to the 1400’s

newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm#I
 
Of course the point isn’t what you or I think of them, except to say that in your approach, one is almost required to assume that Calvin, or Zwingli, would have remained loyal Catholics, had it not been for Luther and sola scriptura. I just find that unrealistic.

Jon
I never thought about it. I don’t know what Calvin would have done if Luther had not broken the ice, so to speak.

The thing that made what Luther did unique is that in previous disputes or conflicts the antagonists battled over trying to get the Church to declare in favor of their positions. So with the christological heresies for example, the Arians who said Jesus was a creature did all they could to get their belief approved by the Church. A pope was martyred. Another one declared Athanasius a trouble maker. There was no pope for a couple of years and finally some deacon told the Arian bishops if he were elected he would formally deny Christ’s divinity. Notice the role of the papacy in this. He got elected and then refused to do the deed. He said woe unto me if I deny what all those who came before me held, and he was exhiled and killed, if I remember the history I read long ago…

The point is in the disputes of the ages no one presumed to start their own religion. The Orthodox beef is the papacy. They claim there are other issues, but the core of it is the papacy. The sacraments are the same, succesion, pray for the dead, to the saints, etc. It really is the same religion in essence. This is not the case with Protestantism.

Protestantism is almost undefinable in that the beliefs of its denominations are all over the place. A local minister near me tells his congregation there is no such thing as angels. How he claims this is incomprehensible when he also claims his beliefs are biblical. A friend of mine is a “bishop” in the Church of the Firstborn. The main doctrine is refusing to go to a doctor. They let their children die rather than take medicine. He claims his doctrines are from the Bible.

Appealing to the early confessions to define the religion is of no use either. They may have been an attempt to define doctrine, but they wre unable to keep the sheep from scattering in every direction in disregard of whatever the early reformers had to say. What percentage of people sitting in a Protestant pew on Sunday have ever read them? In this religion that lacks authority, what replaces authority is a sense of liberty to define one’s own doctrine. History affirms this. That is how so many denominations came into being.

A friend of mine is the principal of a Protestant school in a nearby city. It is unaffiliated with any one church or denomination. She told me she hired a fantastic religion teacher. He had all the kids fired up and enthusiastic, getting saved, right and left. She said she knew she would not be able to keep this guy, because he was going to start a church. As a Catholic I was astounded, but these people think nothing of it. It is normal for them. I said, he can not start a church, his own church. Jesus started a Church. This guy has no authority to start a church. Is he crazy?

One of the things I thought about years ago was why Luther devised his two sola doctrines. These ideas came out of the mind of the man. What motivated them?

My theory on sola fide is that it was a way to deal with the terrible scuples he suffered.

Sola scriptura is the justification for his novel doctrine. The authority behind them is scripture. He could not claim the things he did that contradicted the things the saints believed, if he claimed himself as the authority, so he claimed scripture and his read of it.

I don’t know what percentage of Protestants today are Lutherans. I suspect that most don’t care much about what the original Protestant had to say other than Catholics are wrong. They have all they need, their Bibles.

Some will say the way to fix the mess is get back to the confessions. Others say, what confessions, who cares about them. It really is chaos and the division first triggered by Luther has wrought so much damage and confusion on our civlization that we can no longer figure out men marry women.

God save us.
 
=grandfather;8994391]I never thought about it. I don’t know what Calvin would have done if Luther had not broken the ice, so to speak.
Of course, ISTM the ice was really broken in 1054.
The thing that made what Luther did unique is that in previous disputes or conflicts the antagonists battled over trying to get the Church to declare in favor of their positions. So with the christological heresies for example, the Arians who said Jesus was a creature did all they could to get their belief approved by the Church. A pope was martyred. Another one declared Athanasius a trouble maker. There was no pope for a couple of years and finally some deacon told the Arian bishops if he were elected he would formally deny Christ’s divinity. Notice the role of the papacy in this. He got elected and then refused to do the deed. He said woe unto me if I deny what all those who came before me held, and he was exhiled and killed, if I remember the history I read long ago…
The point is in the disputes of the ages no one presumed to start their own religion. The Orthodox beef is the papacy. They claim there are other issues, but the core of it is the papacy. The sacraments are the same, succesion, pray for the dead, to the saints, etc. It really is the same religion in essence. This is not the case with Protestantism.
If you read the Lutheran confessions, they state a support of succession, they do not deny prayers for the dead, and even prayer to the saints is more wrapped upin what they viewed as the abuses surrounding it. However, there seems to be much more than papal supremacy. My own position, and it is strictly mine, is that papal supremacy is the biggest issue. But again, that’s me. And if Rome and the east were to fix it, and by that I mean full reconciliation and full communion, I would be in RCIA the next day.

continued
 
Protestantism is almost undefinable in that the beliefs of its denominations are all over the place.
And that’s my point, what I said about “protestantism”. There is not, nor has there ever been, a protestant Church. The Lutheran Reformation is not Zwingli’s or Calvin’s, or the anabaptists, etc. These are different movements.
A local minister near me tells his congregation there is no such thing as angels. How he claims this is incomprehensible when he also claims his beliefs are biblical. A friend of mine is a “bishop” in the Church of the Firstborn. The main doctrine is refusing to go to a doctor. They let their children die rather than take medicine. He claims his doctrines are from the Bible.
well, you and i would, together, argue against them.
Appealing to the early confessions to define the religion is of no use either. They may have been an attempt to define doctrine, but they wre unable to keep the sheep from scattering in every direction in disregard of whatever the early reformers had to say. What percentage of people sitting in a Protestant pew on Sunday have ever read them? In this religion that lacks authority, what replaces authority is a sense of liberty to define one’s own doctrine. History affirms this. That is how so many denominations came into being.
Prostestants would not read the Lutheran confessions. They aren’t Lutheran. Why would they? And, for the vast majority, if they follow the lines back, their rootsare not Lutheran.
A friend of mine is the principal of a Protestant school in a nearby city. It is unaffiliated with any one church or denomination. She told me she hired a fantastic religion teacher. He had all the kids fired up and enthusiastic, getting saved, right and left. She said she knew she would not be able to keep this guy, because he was going to start a church. As a Catholic I was astounded, but these people think nothing of it. It is normal for them. I said, he can not start a church, his own church. Jesus started a Church. This guy has no authority to start a church. Is he crazy?
I don’t know if he’s crazy, but again, on most issues, he probably thinks I’m more like you than like him. I’d probably agree.
One of the things I thought about years ago was why Luther devised his two sola doctrines. These ideas came out of the mind of the man. What motivated them?
My theory on sola fide is that it was a way to deal with the terrible scuples he suffered.
Honestly, I think this is simplistic, with all respect to you (and I do respect you). One has to look at what was swirling around at the time.
Sola scriptura is the justification for his novel doctrine. The authority behind them is scripture. He could not claim the things he did that contradicted the things the saints believed, if he claimed himself as the authority, so he claimed scripture and his read of it.
If he were here today, he would tell you that he believed that what he believed was what the saints taught. My belief is that he saw such contradiction - one could point to the difference that grew between Rome and the East from 1054 to 1517 - that he found the only reliable source of truth in scripture. Now one might disagree with him, or his solution, but i don’t think one can argue with the history.
I don’t know what percentage of Protestants today are Lutherans. I suspect that most don’t care much about what the original Protestant had to say other than Catholics are wrong. They have all they need, their Bibles.
They don’t care what Luther or Lutherans say because many of them believe we are too much like you!! Sacraments! :eek: Infant baptism! :eek: Confession to a pastor/priest! :eek: Amiliennialism! :eek: The list goes on.
Some will say the way to fix the mess is get back to the confessions. Others say, what confessions, who cares about them. It really is chaos and the division first triggered by Luther has wrought so much damage and confusion on our civlization that we can no longer figure out men marry women.
I don’t. I say the fix, I believe, starts with the patriarchates, and unity there. That’s where division truly started, that’s where it starts to end, though I strongly favor the continued dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics.
God save us.
Amen

Jon
 
JonNC;8997294:
The difference between the schism of 1054 and the multiple heresies that mushroomed out of the late middle ages is that from 1054 there a basically two camps that believe basically the same things.
Protestantism divided, divided, divided again and divides still.

I don’t think the Orthodox feel that way…to them the differences which exist between them and the CC are very very serious…I don’t think from what I’ve read on this board and in my own study they would minimalize the differences and say “basically” your two communions “believe the same things”.
 
=grandfather;8997640]
The difference between the schism of 1054 and the multiple heresies that mushroomed out of the late middle ages is that from 1054 there a basically two camps that believe basically the same things.
This isn’t the message I hear here, grandfather (btw, I just became a grandfather a few months ago :extrahappy: ). What I hear is that there are lots of issues - the IC, Transubstantiation, Filioque, indulgences, etc.
Protestantism divided, divided, divided again and divides still.
Again, you are speaking as if portestantism is/was a monolithic communion.

Where I think you and I agree is that division wounds the Church and Christ’s message.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top