Protestanism: a great heresy

  • Thread starter Thread starter marineboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ecce Homo:
I will try to address this.

Let me say that Catholics do accept the Bible as a source of truth–but not the only source. Why do we believe there is another? The answer to this question is strongly tied to the answer to the question “Why do we accept the Bible as a source of truth?”

We need to remember that in the early days of the Church, the apostles did a considerable amount of preaching by word of mouth. None of the books of the New Testament existed at this time, as the apostles were just beginning to write them. Further, the ciruclation of these writings was slow at best, especially with the various persecutions by the Jews and the Romans. So the early Christians were able to know the truth even without the New Testament. Clearly there was another source of truth aside from the writings of the apostles themeselves–the words preached by the mouths of the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This source of truth is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (with a capital ‘T’).

We must next ask ourselves how we know the Bible is a source of truth. It is plain from the historical record that Christ founded a Church and that this Church was governed by the apostles under the leadership of St. Peter. These men bore tremendous witness to the truths of Christ, particularly his resurrection, so much so that they would rather die than recant that truth. It was by the authority of the apostles successors that the canon of the scriptures was finally determined–several centuries later. Is is on that authority that the canon and authenticity of the Bible is established. The compilation of the books of the Bible were significant to the early Christians, and Eusebius (ca AD 260 - 339) treats of the determination of the inspired books as an important theme of his history of the Church.

The Bible, as a compilation, was a product of the Catholic Church, and its veracity is attested to through the Church’s authority–given it by Christ.

The Bible also points to the other source of truth–Tradition. One such place is St. John 21:24-25:

From this we see that much truth about the life of Jesus exists that was not written down. So much so that St. John believed it impossible to write down.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said. I only have a problem when Tradition conflicts Scripture, as in the case of infant baptism versus what the book of ACTS says (see some of my previous posts on this).

God bless
Josiah
 
Tom of Assisi said:
**Exactly **I love the understanding and intelligence you demonstrate: the “catho-fundies” --that’s awesome. Let’s make fun of the orthodox catholics to make ourselves (with our diverse ways) feel better. God bless you for inventing such a great word to make us intellectual snobs laugh at the catho-fundies.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Click to expand...

No one should make fun of him. The point, however, is that his views are NOT orthodox according to the catechism. His is a CONSERVATIVE view, not an ORTHODOX one. Orthodox is what the pope and magisterium say it is. Conservative is SSPX, Feeneyites, Saint Benedict Center, etc.
 
40.png
josiah:
I agree with most of what you said. I only have a problem when Tradition conflicts Scripture, as in the case of infant baptism versus what the book of ACTS says (see some of my previous posts on this).

God bless
Josiah
Click to expand...
In addition to the verses you site, I found a number of other verses in Acts about baptsim, but this one stuck out:
"And a certain woman named
Click to expand...
Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul.

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." Acts 16:14-15
Now, I know it doesn’t say that Lydia had infants, but it does say her entire household was baptized.

Today, when an infant is baptized, the child’s Godparents make the profession of faith for the child and promise to help the parents educate the child in the Faith. Later, when the child is of age he or she receives Confirmation. So the element of belief–which is what I believe you are pointing out–is not really missing at an infant baptism.

Again, as another poster commented, I am not aware of any passage of scripture that forbids infant baptism. Further, I see nothing in in Christ words to the apostles that would forbid infant baptism:
"
Click to expand...
All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matt. 28:18-20
I do not see a conflict here between Scripture and Tradition.

Through Christ,
Ecce Homo

(Sorry about the multiple sized fonts…the message box kept changing the size on me.)
 
Tom of Assisi:
Typical liberalism. The Church is to blame when people invent new theologies and ways of worship.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with being new - the Church was new once. St. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas were new - using Aristotle as a help in theological method was most untraditional. St. Francis of Assisi and his friars were new: previously, there had been centuries of monasticism - itself a novelty in the 4th century. It met with plenty of resistance, and not just from the pagans.​

New theologies and new methods of studying theology and new ways of worship are always coming up: they are signs of the supernatural vitality of the Church.

Mat 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind;Mat 13:48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad.Mat 13:49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous,Mat 13:50 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.Mat 13:51 “Have you understood all this?” They said to him, "Yes."Mat 13:52 And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”
Listen my liberal friend: The Church doesn’t fail people; people fail the Church.
Click to expand...

How did you get:​

“Typical liberalism. The Church is to blame when people invent new theologies and ways of worship.”

out of the comments to marineboy that you quoted ?

What I said, was in reply to his comment about destroying Protestantism - I don’t see how objecting to violent means of repressing Protestantism (or anything else) is “blaming the Church”.

Suppressing a religion or belief often strengthens it - much more to the point, cruelty and violence (there has been plenty of both in Christian and religious history) are not the means Christ appointed to spread the Gospel. Are we to do His work, by means that are contrary to His way of behaving ? Surely not.

As for “failing the Church” - our basic vocation as Christians is, to Christ; not to His Church. The Mystical Body is subject to the Glorified Redeemer; it is not in every respect identical with Him, but is in His service. If they were the very same in all respects without exception, we would be left with the Incarnation of the Church, the Passion of the Church, and we would be receiving the Body of the Church in the Eucharist. No - the Church (= us, not just the clergy) is always failing Christ, and is always in need of forgiveness; is holy, and in constant need of repentance. Because the Church is incompletely holy, yet is also holy with the holiness of Christ.

It is because He takes priority over His Church, that we must seek Him, when the Church’s authorities do not provide the “food in due season” that they ought to. He has made us fir Himself - only secondarily for His Mystical Body. We are not the property of the clergy or of the Church, but of Christ. So our ultimate and unreserved obedience must be to Christ - not to Church authority. ##
 
I never thought that most biblical defenses cited in support of infant baptism held much water (pardon the pun). Yes, “and his whole household was baptized,” but it’s still a stretch to say it must have included infants. It “might” have, but it didn’t “must” have. I believe in infant baptism because:
  1. The Church has done it from its earliest times. The Fathers didn’t seem to have a problem with it.
  2. The Church has continued to baptise infants, as have the majority of the ecclesial communities of our seperated brethren, (who, Marineboy, "with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church…"read your Catechism).
  3. This didn’t REALLY pose much of a question for the first 15 centuries of the Church’s life. Further, the Protestant Reformers still hewed to infant baptism, except for the Anabaptists. I’m one of those Catholic converts who is constantly amazed that Protestants, with all due respect, seem to think that for 1500 years, the Church got it wrong, and that Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, and Cranmer pulled it all back together. I know the Church was a mess at the time, but please!
  4. The Bible doesn’t specifically forbid it. Isn’t it seen as the parallel of circumsion? The Jewish people circumcise babies into God’s covenant with Abraham, we baptize them into the New Covenant.
  5. The Vicar of Christ on earth seems okay with it. I try to stay on his good side.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
  1. The Bible doesn’t specifically forbid it. Isn’t it seen as the parallel of circumsion? The Jewish people circumcise babies into God’s covenant with Abraham, we baptize them into the New Covenant.
The bible doesn’t specifically forbid smoking pot either.

What about all of the baptism references in ACTS. Isn’t this recorded history of what the early church practiced?

Josiah
Click to expand...
 
Ecce Homo:
Today, when an infant is baptized, the child’s Godparents make the profession of faith for the child and promise to help the parents educate the child in the Faith. Later, when the child is of age he or she receives Confirmation. So the element of belief–which is what I believe you are pointing out–is not really missing at an infant baptism.

Again, as another poster commented, I am not aware of any passage of scripture that forbids infant baptism. Further, I see nothing in in Christ words to the apostles that would forbid infant baptism:

I do not see a conflict here between Scripture and Tradition.

Through Christ,
Ecce Homo

Hey Ecce,
I believe the most explicit statement regarding the conditions for baptism is:
Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

I believe strongly that belief comes first then baptism. This appears to be a theme throughout acts.

Love
Josiah

((Sorry about the multiple sized fonts…the message box kept changing the size on me.)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
josiah:
The bible doesn’t specifically forbid smoking pot either.

What about all of the baptism references in ACTS. Isn’t this recorded history of what the early church practiced?

Josiah
Click to expand...
LOL, you have me on the pot thing! But, do those references EXPLICITLY state that infants were baptized? Wouldn’t our precedent for baptizing our babies be better founded in Sacred Tradition (what we did during the time that the Canon was being written/established, what was received from the Apostles in their oral teaching, etc.). See, I see this kind of thing as the primary problem in dialoging with some Protestants: we believe in Holy Writ and Tradition, they believe in only what is overt and explicit in Holy Writ (forgetting that things like the Hypostatic Union, which all Christians believe, is NOT mentioned anywhere in Scripture). The only way around it is to convince them that the Bible is the product of the Church, as the New Testament was written by the Apostles and they lead the Church and consecrated others to lead It, who in turn consecrated their successors, and so on. If you can’t move them off that to our position (“The Bible means what the Church says It means”), isn’t it a rather fruitless argument? The Church was here before the New Testament was. We believe that has certain ramifications.
 
Oh, Josiah, I am sorry! I thought I was talking to a Catholic. You must have thought my response worded oddly! There are lots of threads on Infant Baptism on this site. You can find out what our Church teaches by searching them. God bless you, my brother in Christ.
 
Tom of Assisi said:
**Exactly **I love the understanding and intelligence you demonstrate: the “catho-fundies” --that’s awesome. Let’s make fun of the orthodox catholics to make ourselves (with our diverse ways) feel better.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but my neologism is meant as a term of derision (of the ideas, not the person) precisely because marineboy’s post IMO is a charicature of genuine orthodox doctrine. My point is that shouting EENS at every turn, ignoring the theological precision the magisterium has given to the teaching and giving it instead the most banal, (forgive me) biggotted, interpretation just is a kind of fundamentalism. This kind of argumentation is just as misguided as to demand proof texts for every point of doctrine. I’m sorry, but I don’t think it liberal or mamby-pamby inclusivist drivel to insist that fundamentalism is the bane of a truly Catholic and intellectually rich understanding of the faith.
 
40.png
josiah:
PS Marineboy, if you are the product of Roman Catholicism, I don’t think I would ever want to touch RC with a 10 FT pole. You’re lack of grace, kindness and love to those outside of the RC church is a HUGE turn off. Not to mention non-Christlike.
Click to expand...
I second this. I am exploring RC for similar reasons and people like Marineboy have already given me some very bad impressions.

Not trying to be mean Marineboy, just telling you like it is. You make me think that if you were in charge then you would come after me {heretic that I am} with a sword. And there are many “protestants” who are sick of protestants and catholics. All they want is to see Jesus.

Jeff
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Marine: Your ideas are dangerously close to Feeneyism. Pius XII excommunicated Father Feeney for his extreme views of “Extra Ecclesiam Nula Salus.” Your views are not what is taught in the Catechism of the Church. Do Holy Mother Church a favor. Don’t try to proselytize until you learn exactly what She teaches.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that there is something of irony for folks to consider here. Marine and those folks who oppose the Vatican II have effectivly made themselves protestants…

Jeff
 
40.png
Berean:
Amen Sister in Christ. I’ll tell something you may not know. Marine boy is able to spout his hatred and the administrators let him get away with it. If a non-Catholic wrote this the administrators would boot him or her in a heart beat. There seems to be a double standard doesn’t there? Sister the Catholic Church is better than the hatred that is being displayed by Marine boy. He should be banned for his ignorance and hatred. I hope he is not a U.S. Marine, how could I be proud of moron like him! I will pray for him. God bless you Sister for taking the moral ground and standing up for your brothers and sisters away from the Catholic Church. There is only one Church and you can read about it in Ephesians chapter 4. It is the Church Jesus is coming back for. All born again believers in Christ from all denominations. Praise God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
I think everyone is misunderstanding marineboy. He is not spouting hatred. He is just explaining that the Catholic Church is the only true church, and he is correct. It is far harder to be saved from outside the church than it is from inside the church.

Modern Catholics have been teaching basicly that it doesn’t matter whether you are in the church or not. I think they down play the role of the church in salvation. All grace is passed from Christ to the Church. It is through the Church that you recieve grace. Non-Catholics may recieve grace, but it is always through the Church that they recieve it. They are hindered in there abillity to recieve grace though. There maybe invincible ignorance sometimes, but I would say that that is over played sometimes. They make it sound like everyone will be in heaven.

Christ can give people grace who are not in the Church, but he desires everyone to be in that one church. There is one Christ, one flock, one church, and one faith. We are all one.

I think that the Ben Franklin quote, We must hang together, or surely we shall hang separately".

I would say that the first hang refers to unity of the people, the second hang refers to death by hanging. We are all part of the church and it is most desirable that we remain part of the Church.

This does not mean that I think all protestants are going to hell, I just think that it is much tougher for them. I believe the church when it says that there is invincible ignorance, but I also believe “extra eclesium nulla salus”.
The warden on The Shawhank Redemption said, “Salvation is from within”, he was correct when he said this. It is through the church that you recieve salvation.
 
40.png
josiah:
If all authentic Christian doctrine isn’t contained in Scripture what becomes your source of Truth? Do you agree that Scripture is infallible?
Click to expand...
Of course Scripture is infallible. It never errs in matters pertaining to Christian faith and right morality. Infallible, however, doesn’t mean complete in content. For those parts of Christian doctrine not in Scripture, we must trust in the authority of the Church Christ Jesus founded, which is the Catholic Church. This is quite sensible since Scripture and Tradition can never conflict, but are instead mutually supporting.

The conflicts and contradictions that you perceive aren’t real. They are the result of comparing your church’s incomplete tradition to the genuine Tradition of Jesus Christ’s Church. Since your church’s tradition is in error about, for example, infant baptism, but you either cannot or will not recognize this error, you in turn presume that your church has the authority to define what is and what is not acceptable to Christian doctrine and practice.

Your church does not have that authority. That authority belongs to the Church, the one that Jesus Christ founded when he gave the keys to the kingdom to the first pope, Saint Peter the Apostle.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top