A
Angainor
Guest
I believe being born again in Baptism to be an objective truth, in itself, and independent of teaching authority.
- Status
M
MariaG
Guest
Yet some protestant churches have not come to the same conclusion. They have taken a “objective truth” and come to a different conclusion. So how can it be objective truth independent of teaching authority if different denominations do not see it the same way?
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Catholic do not believe in Sola Scriptura !
Protestants do!
Not only is the average Christian disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, if he tries to do so and arrives at conclusions different than those of his church’s leadership, he will quickly discover that his right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation.
Protestant pastors from the time of Luther and Calvin have realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to interpret Scripture, they must prohibit the exercise of this right to others, lest their group be torn apart by strife. It is the failure to prohibit the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over twenty thousand ( much higher now 30,000)Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press World Christian Encyclopedia.
**The **disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing **factions, each teaching different doctrines on key theological issues, is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of sola scriptura. **
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea4.asp
J
J.Denise
Guest
Whether you are a cafeteria catholic or a protestant, do you really believe that Jesus allowed himself to be arrested, insanely mocked, scourged, hammered blow by blow to a cross and crucified so that we could all pick and choose which of His teachings to adhere to?
If we’re going to make up our own truths, what do we need Him for anyway?
If we’re going to make up our own truths, what do we need Him for anyway?
A
Angainor
Guest
I believe those protestant chruches to be objectively wrong.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Catherine S. said:
And the fact that the Catholic church, with all the strength of the Holy Spirit behind it, was unable, even with the cooperation of governments and in times and cultures that allowed the use of imprisonment, torture and death as coercion, to keep its own together, does that prove the failure of Catholicism?
Catholics run and hide under the title Catholic, but there is a great disunity of belief. The protestants left Catholicism, over disunitiy of belief, and people leave the Catholic church daily over disunity of belief. Yet, you sit smug in your “fullness of truth” as if it is a given. Most of those 30,000 christian denominations left Catholicism FIRST, before they broke off further , so how convenient of you to wash your hands of them.
The Catholic church has not done a better job of holding onto dissenters. Yours is the original thing they dissented from!
So the question remains, why doesn’t the power of the Holy Spirit inform all dedicated seekers the same way? For there are people of pure heart and earnest desire amongst all these faiths.
It is not a case of us/them. It is us. All the people of God earnestly seeking the truth. We have the scriptures, we have traditions, we have a line of spirit filled teachers, why do we not have unity?
It is denial to act as if this is a “Protestant problem” or one only due to Sola Scriptura.
cheddar
M
MariaG
Guest
But can you see how Catholics see the slippery slope of “objective truth that needs no teaching authority”.
Lutherans seem to do fairly well, but the farther one gets away, the more splits, the less “objective truth” seems to be visible.
There is a truth, but there also was a rock upon which Jesus left the Church to sit on so the Church would not slide into the abyss.
The Holy Spirit has promised to lead and guide us to all truth. The only way this statement can stay true, if one looks at all the different interpretations espoused by Christians, is if this truth applies to the Church, the visible Church.
But I can also see how it is harder for a Lutheran to see this. I came from 3 different denominations all who had very different views on things you would call “objective truth”
God Bless,
Maria
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). **This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. ****His Church will survive until his return. **
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. **(Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. **None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, **especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit
catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp
M
Mystophilus
Guest
If the Bible alone is not trustworthy, then it cannot reasonably be used to support the idea of trusting in the Church alone, can it?
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Catherine S.:
To a C1st Jew, that passage meant that his Church would take the place of the eben shetiyyah in keeping order against the forces of darkness. The issue was one of spiritual conflict, not mere mortal doctrinal rivalry.
Interestingly, the most common comment in the Eastern Orthodox Church is that the Roman Church split away from them, by altering the Nicene Creed through the introduction of the filioque clause, and that they are the only church which has existed unchanged since the days of Jesus’ ministry. Considering their attitude towards interpretation, their argument is the more convincing.
As is the fact that the People’s Republic of China is the largest country in the world, I presume?
M
MariaG
Guest
The Bible alone was never even a theory until 1500’s.
I can point to the Bible and Tradition and show you where we should trust the Church.
Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone?
C
Catherine_S
Guest
[Interestingly, the most common comment in the Eastern Orthodox Church is that the Roman Church split away from **them, by altering the Nicene Creed through the introduction of the filioque clause, and that they are the only church which has existed unchanged since the days of Jesus’ ministry. Considering their attitude towards interpretation, their argument is the more convincing.]
Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest
The situation created **by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
Now the Byzantine emperors, Turkish sultans, and Communist politburos are gone. Our Orthodox Churches are free. We are faced squarely with a problem hidden for centuries-how can we, the various local Churches, live, act, and think like the Church, which we claim that we are, rather than like, as Vladimir Soloviev said, **a mere conglomerate of national Churches, formally constituting a single communion, but characterized by discord, hostility, jealousy, and hatred? **
The present tiff between Constantinople and Moscow might well compel one to take more seriously the logic of Soloviev’s argument. Perhaps even more compelling, however, is the realization of both the need, and the freedom we now have, to face directly the problem created by the Schism of 1054. . . .
**Perhaps now is the time, the ***kairos, *to do something which is simultaneously terribly radical and terribly conservative -to call on the Bishop of Rome to act as arbiter in this squabble between Moscow and Constantinople.
Perhaps now is the time to recognize the folly and foolishness of our ecclesiastical structure which has produced national Churches which seem interminably locked into their own self-interest and which often lack any discernible catholic spirit and mind. Perhaps now is the time to look deeply at our need for the Petrine ministry, which was so profoundly recognized by Eastern saints such as Theodore the Studite and Maximus the Confessor and which we still sing about in our liturgical celebrations (e.g., texts for the commemoration of St. Gregory the Great).
Perhaps now is the time to fall down on our knees and mutually ask forgiveness of each other-Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Arabs, Muscovites, Constantinopolitans, “converts,” all of us! And maybe when we rise up again we will find ourselves at a most peculiar place-at the same Eucharistic Chalice.
Rev. Chrysostom Frank, Department of Church History, University of South Africa.
**catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2sb2.asp
**
Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest
The situation created **by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
Now the Byzantine emperors, Turkish sultans, and Communist politburos are gone. Our Orthodox Churches are free. We are faced squarely with a problem hidden for centuries-how can we, the various local Churches, live, act, and think like the Church, which we claim that we are, rather than like, as Vladimir Soloviev said, **a mere conglomerate of national Churches, formally constituting a single communion, but characterized by discord, hostility, jealousy, and hatred? **
The present tiff between Constantinople and Moscow might well compel one to take more seriously the logic of Soloviev’s argument. Perhaps even more compelling, however, is the realization of both the need, and the freedom we now have, to face directly the problem created by the Schism of 1054. . . .
**Perhaps now is the time, the ***kairos, *to do something which is simultaneously terribly radical and terribly conservative -to call on the Bishop of Rome to act as arbiter in this squabble between Moscow and Constantinople.
Perhaps now is the time to recognize the folly and foolishness of our ecclesiastical structure which has produced national Churches which seem interminably locked into their own self-interest and which often lack any discernible catholic spirit and mind. Perhaps now is the time to look deeply at our need for the Petrine ministry, which was so profoundly recognized by Eastern saints such as Theodore the Studite and Maximus the Confessor and which we still sing about in our liturgical celebrations (e.g., texts for the commemoration of St. Gregory the Great).
Perhaps now is the time to fall down on our knees and mutually ask forgiveness of each other-Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Arabs, Muscovites, Constantinopolitans, “converts,” all of us! And maybe when we rise up again we will find ourselves at a most peculiar place-at the same Eucharistic Chalice.
Rev. Chrysostom Frank, Department of Church History, University of South Africa.
**catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2sb2.asp
**
T
Trelow
Guest
Cancer begets cancer. Protestantism is a cancer.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Catherine S,
I have no doubt that the Catholic church has the protection of the Holy Spirit over it. I have no doubt that many Christian churches do.
There are definitely some new churches that claim to be the church Christ established, but that is neither here nor there, anyone can claim whatever they want.
I am not here to take issue with the church, as much as the finger pointing. “Look what those protestants do!!! They can’t even keep their own together…” That sort of thing. Because, the Catholics don’t do any better at it.
In that sense, I think Protestantism is generally more honest. If you don’t agree with the teachings of your church, you leave and find one who you feel has the truth. If your Catholic, you just keep calling yourself Catholic and do your own thing. Then the church keeps calling you Catholic too and brags about its numbers.
Even if you leave, if you were baptised Catholic, they hold claim to you. A strange sort of unity, I have heard it called mystical. I have heard theology which claims that all people on earth are really part of the Catholic church, they are just in ignorance or denial of it, and may still be saved by this mystical relationship through the salvific relationship between Christ and his church.
That is very generous! I mean that sincerely.
This has been my experience as a cradle Catholic. If you disagree with teachings or don’t live by them, you are called things like “Cafeteria Catholic” and scorned, and some will say things like “if you don’t believe what the church teaches…why don’t you just leave?” Then, if you do leave, they say “once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You’re still Catholic…” Hmmm…
I left the Catholic church less over doctrinal issues than over integrity issues. When I was a Catholic, I was a really good Catholic. When issues arose that prayer, study etc couldn’t resolve, I tried to have them answered through the proper means. When I couldn’t get resolution, I left, because I couldn’t see staying if I was going to be a bad Catholic.
People spent many more words on me about leaving, than they ever did trying to help me work through the issues. I guess that losing a team member mattered more than helping me be a good team member.No one cared how I felt or what I believed, as long as I stayed. This reinforced my sense that integrity mattered little to the church.
“Look how many people wear our jersey!” is a statement that falls on skeptical ears with me. I was part of the team, I know, sadly, how little that jersey means. It is not one that a person has to earn, or even want. They just have to be willing to put it on to keep everyone happy.
I keep thinking of the parable…a father had two sons, he asked them to do a task for him, one said yes, but never did it, the other said no, but repented and went and completed the task…Which one did what his father asked?
cheddar
I have no doubt that the Catholic church has the protection of the Holy Spirit over it. I have no doubt that many Christian churches do.
There are definitely some new churches that claim to be the church Christ established, but that is neither here nor there, anyone can claim whatever they want.
I am not here to take issue with the church, as much as the finger pointing. “Look what those protestants do!!! They can’t even keep their own together…” That sort of thing. Because, the Catholics don’t do any better at it.
In that sense, I think Protestantism is generally more honest. If you don’t agree with the teachings of your church, you leave and find one who you feel has the truth. If your Catholic, you just keep calling yourself Catholic and do your own thing. Then the church keeps calling you Catholic too and brags about its numbers.
Even if you leave, if you were baptised Catholic, they hold claim to you. A strange sort of unity, I have heard it called mystical. I have heard theology which claims that all people on earth are really part of the Catholic church, they are just in ignorance or denial of it, and may still be saved by this mystical relationship through the salvific relationship between Christ and his church.
That is very generous! I mean that sincerely.
This has been my experience as a cradle Catholic. If you disagree with teachings or don’t live by them, you are called things like “Cafeteria Catholic” and scorned, and some will say things like “if you don’t believe what the church teaches…why don’t you just leave?” Then, if you do leave, they say “once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You’re still Catholic…” Hmmm…
I left the Catholic church less over doctrinal issues than over integrity issues. When I was a Catholic, I was a really good Catholic. When issues arose that prayer, study etc couldn’t resolve, I tried to have them answered through the proper means. When I couldn’t get resolution, I left, because I couldn’t see staying if I was going to be a bad Catholic.
People spent many more words on me about leaving, than they ever did trying to help me work through the issues. I guess that losing a team member mattered more than helping me be a good team member.No one cared how I felt or what I believed, as long as I stayed. This reinforced my sense that integrity mattered little to the church.
“Look how many people wear our jersey!” is a statement that falls on skeptical ears with me. I was part of the team, I know, sadly, how little that jersey means. It is not one that a person has to earn, or even want. They just have to be willing to put it on to keep everyone happy.
I keep thinking of the parable…a father had two sons, he asked them to do a task for him, one said yes, but never did it, the other said no, but repented and went and completed the task…Which one did what his father asked?
cheddar
S
scylla
Guest
I can understand why you left, the Church has suffered a lot from lack of understanding or really even caring from a lot of people within it.
I was at a meeting with some parishoners and a nun of my church and someone commented that someone they all knew had left for another church. (some independant church) The nun just shrugged and pretty much said oh well.
This sickened me, why is there so many people who just think that the church is something you choose. From that point on I have been dedicated to asking and answering the questions why are you Catholic? Don’t you want to know more?
I am in a very liberal, lax parish which has shrunk over the last few years. If this was the church I first encountered when I was studying the church, it would have taken me years to come back.
I came back to the Church despite the crummy catechesis I received as a kid and the years of relativism. It just took an opening of my heart and a will to do what was God’s will and not mine.
We shouldn’t even discuss disagreements with founders as Protestantism is kinda a moving target. If I finally prove to a Protestant that their theology is based on something different then what does that accomplish? All it does is try and prove them wrong, instead of concentrating on leading them to the truth of Catholicism.
God Bless
Scylla
I was at a meeting with some parishoners and a nun of my church and someone commented that someone they all knew had left for another church. (some independant church) The nun just shrugged and pretty much said oh well.
This sickened me, why is there so many people who just think that the church is something you choose. From that point on I have been dedicated to asking and answering the questions why are you Catholic? Don’t you want to know more?
I am in a very liberal, lax parish which has shrunk over the last few years. If this was the church I first encountered when I was studying the church, it would have taken me years to come back.
I came back to the Church despite the crummy catechesis I received as a kid and the years of relativism. It just took an opening of my heart and a will to do what was God’s will and not mine.
We shouldn’t even discuss disagreements with founders as Protestantism is kinda a moving target. If I finally prove to a Protestant that their theology is based on something different then what does that accomplish? All it does is try and prove them wrong, instead of concentrating on leading them to the truth of Catholicism.
God Bless
Scylla
M
Mystophilus
Guest
While various passages have been interpreted to say that the Bible is sufficient alone, that fails to solve the problem. Anyone who wants to believe that the Bible is self-sufficient can choose passages to support their argument. Likewise, any church which wants to claim that it alone has the authority to interpret the Truth can also find support for its claims, and many, many churches have done this. Support, however, is not evidence.
Thus far, God has idiosyncratically chosen not to come down and say, “This is the right church, and all of the others are wrong.” God has chosen to leave the issue in its current unprovable state, which ought to inspire curiosity regarding whether or not such a thing as ‘the right church’ actually exists in God’s view.
M
MariaG
Guest
Show me one verse in the Bible that says the bible in and of itself is the sole authority and self-interpreting.
People can say anything. Actually having actual biblical support is another thing.
There is absolutely no where in the bible where it tells us that Scripture alone is the final authority. Scripture is profitable.
Show me one verse that tells us to look to the Bible alone.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Scripture Catholic lists many Scripture verses that try to “prove” Scripture alone, but none hold up to scrutiny. To come to Scripture alone, one must ignore the other parts of the Bible that say otherwise.
As to God not coming down to tell us which Church, He did. Right there in Scripture when He tells us the Church will never fail etc. History provides the rest.
Ironically, the words of my saving grace sermon given by a Nazarene pastor come to mind.
“Either you believe the Bible cover to cover including the cover or we have nothing else to talk about.” I used to make excuses that we couldn’t rely 100% on Scripture because it had been passed down by men blah, blah blah. Using the, “anyone can interpret scripture to mean” is along the same lines.
Scripture cannot contradict itself. Bible alone would have the Bible contradict itself.
God Bless,
Maria
C
Catherine_S
Guest
By what other power can evangelization be accomplished and the Christian life lived than the body of the crucified and risen Lord? Only he can bring unity to believers by his power and love.
The Church Fathers and the medieval doctors were so impressed with the unitive power of the Eucharist that they called this the “sacrament of Church unity.” Ignatius of Antioch, within living memory of the apostles, stressed the common chalice as a symbol of the unity found in the blood of Christ.[Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Phildelphians 4:1: "There is only one chalice that you may be united in the blood of Christ."] In the middle of the third century, when the Church was being torn apart by schism and persecution, Cyprian insisted on the Eucharist as symbol and an instrument of unity: "When the Lord calls his body the bread which is made up of many grains joined together, he means by that the union of Christian people, which he contained within himself."[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 69, ch. 2.] No wonder that Thomas Aquinas wrote,** "In this sacrament the whole mystery of our salvation is held.Summa Theologiae, q.83, a. 4.]
We saw Paul teaching in 1 Corinthians 10:14-17 that the Eucharist is a real participation in the body and blood of Christ. In that same text he drew on the known celebration of the Eucharist as having only one loaf to underscore that the body of Christ (the Church) is only one. In the mystery of God’s plan,** this** one (physical) body of Christ symbolically reminds us that Christ founded only one Church. The Eucharist is absolutely necessary because the unity of the Church is perfectly proclaimed in it and because it brings about that unity in an increasing degree until Christ comes again.
Without frequent Eucharist the most vivid reminder of unity is eliminated. Without a deep faith in the Real Presence of Christ’s body, the most important instrument of unity is removed from the hearts and minds of the faithful.
Christ did not leave the problem of disunity **to a human creativity that can be **so easily misguided. His provision unites the faithful into his body by giving us nothing less than himself. The Catholic Church has no choice but to emphasize the Eucharist, for it is Christ alone who can bring his lost sheep into the Church so that there will be one shepherd and one flock (John 10:16).
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612fea1.asp
.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Catherine S. said:
Just a reminder - not all Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura.
O+
R
RiverRock
Guest
O.S. Luke:
Then you would have to be Catholic!
- Status