Protestant, If Catholicism in not the church....

[TOmNossor]

Perhaps you cannot agree with me, and it really is not important that you do, but it has been clear to me for quite some time that the words of Cardinal Newman are quite true.

“…This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…”

As would be suggested by the title of the work from which the above quote comes, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the beliefs of Christians have surely “developed.”

For me there is no excuse for Protestants accepting the developments of the first four councils (openly as creedal Protestants do or unknowingly, but just as effectively, as most other Protestants do), but inexplicably rejecting the developments of later councils. EOs in my mind also fall into the same “inexplicably rejecting” bucket when they reject all councils after the 7th. I have yet to see a Protestant or an EO explain how they know that this was the time the authority left and the Holy Spirit no longer sealed the decisions of the councils.

Eastern Orthodox do not have the Protestant problem of reinventing what seems to be the witness of history and that is that authority is real and is passed on, but Protestants have not adequately explained this to me either. This is an additional problem for most Protestants in my mind, and perhaps the sole huge problem for a very small minority of Protestants who do not dogmatically stand behind any councils.

So here is where you may throw your hands up and be quite outside of agreeing with me. If the Catholic Church is not God’s church then we will not find God’s church among her children the Protestants. If the authority to lead the church departed such that we reject the 5th and on or the 8th and on councils, then we cannot reform the authority back (or hold the line at 7 unable to explain why we hold the line). The witness of history is that authority is passed on by the laying on of hands and the reformation may or may not correct errors, but it cannot restore authority. For me there are two choices that do not tumble to the above “fatal flaw”: Catholic or LDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[MYSTERIOUS_An-D]

TOmNossor:

As would be suggested by the title of the work from which the above quote comes, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, the beliefs of Christians have surely “developed.”

I have yet to see a Protestant or an EO explain how they know that this was the time the** authority left and the Holy Spirit no longer sealed the decisions of the councils.**

Eastern Orthodox do not have the Protestant problem of reinventing what seems to be the witness of history and that is that authority is real and is passed on, but Protestants have not adequately explained this to me either. This is an additional problem for most Protestants in my mind, and perhaps the sole huge problem for a very small minority of Protestants who do not dogmatically stand behind any councils.

So here is where you may throw your hands up and be quite outside of agreeing with me. If the Catholic Church is not God’s church then we will not find God’s church among her children the Protestants.

I need some further clarification on these statements, but what I am gathering from the statements is that you feel Protestants believe God isn’t working through the Catholic Church. I can assure you that this isn’t the case and am willing to vouche for my other Protestant colleagues. The issue isn’t so much whether or not the Catholic Church was the first church, but whether or not the Church is infallible. I will explain further.

The reason most Protestants call the Churches claim to infallibility into question is because it is run by fallible people. Not to say that these people aren’t leading as pure of a life as they possibly can, by sin is in our nature. I have been told the arguement that the institution of the Church is infallible while the people running it are not infallible. I could use some more clarification on this, but it would seem to me that if you take the people out of the Church itself, then the institution no longer exists. People are what make up the Church, and so therefore it is impossible for it to be infallible.

I also have heard another interesting arguement about the translating of scripture. I don’t know enough details and will provide more later, but what I have heard is that the word Church isn’t actually found in the original hebrew writing of the scripture. I apologize for not having the hebrew word, but the word when translated in english means ecclesiastic, which is refering to the people making up the new institution. With this in mind, it wasn’t that Jesus was starting The Church, but rather he was starting a fellowship of people, which implies fallibility. I will search for the original hebrew word so that someone of a bit more knowledge will be able to more closely examine it.

 

[Aris]

MYSTERIOUS An-D:

I am not familiar with the Holy See. What is this and why is it so critical that the Eastern Orthodox be in it?

" Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail upon it"

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Perhaps you cannot agree with me, and it really is not important that you do, but it has been clear to me for quite some time that the words of Cardinal Newman are quite true.

“…This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…”

It is disingenuious for you to quote Newman because you, yourself, are Protestant.

A Protestant is one who protests the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a Mormon, you dissent from (protest) at least two major teachings of the Catholic Church: the authority of the pope and the infallibility of the magisterium. There are also a host of other teachings that you, by extension, also protest: the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism, priesthoods, or the revelations of Joseph Smith.

Anyone who is not Catholic is Protestant, TOm.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Mysterious An-D,

I probably should let a Catholic field your comments, but …

There are two things that I see clearly in history that I do not think are dealt with sufficiently (not that they are not dealt with, I just think they are not dealt with to the point that I see consistency and reason. Of course most people fault me for being unreasonable and inconsistent so this condemnation comes from a position of profound weakness as assessed by the majority of folks).

First, the witness of the Bible and the folks who had “the voice of the apostles still ringing in their ears,” is that ordained authority exists and is passed down. I recognize that those who are ordained are fallible in many ways, but ordination does occur for the leadership of the church. And Christians are to follow their ordained leaders (this does not mean that the ordained leaders are between individuals and God, just that ordained leaders assist the church in maintaining truth and unity).

Second, virtually all of Christianity accepts the assertions made during the first 4 councils. Most Catholic and an even larger percentage of EOs and Protestants will tell you that the councils defined according to St. Vincent de Lerins rule, that doctrine is defined as that which has “*been held always, everywhere and by all.” This is not the witness of history. While shadows and seeds may have existed for all that currently exists in the Catholic Church, the path through history is not clearly defined. To arrive at post fourth council Christianity one cannot walk the path of St. Vincent nor any other humanly obvious path. The path simply must be divine if it *be at true path. So this is the second flaw I see. No Protestant nor EO has been able to explain to me why the divine path was solidly followed for the first 4 or 7 councils, but then the divine guarantee was removed.

Since EOs fall to only one of these “fatal flaws” I have looked a little deeper at the 8th council. The filoque clause in my mind is a much smaller doctrinal definition than are some of the earlier council decisions readily accepted by the EOs. What did they see in the filoque clause that proved to them that the councils were no longer divinely guided? I cannot see it.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

It is disingenuious for you to quote Newman because you, yourself, are Protestant.

A Protestant is one who protests the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a Mormon, you dissent from (protest) at least two major teachings of the Catholic Church: the authority of the pope and the infallibility of the magisterium. There are also a host of other teachings that you, by extension, also protest: the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism, priesthoods, or the revelations of Joseph Smith.

Anyone who is not Catholic is Protestant, TOm.

-C

Have you read Newman? I wholeheartedly recommend it to you.

But, Newman’s words do not carry the same force against a Restorationist that they do against a Reformationist.

LDS do not exist in protest to the Catholic Church. LDS exist because God told Joseph Smith that he should join none of the then existing churches.

Reformationists exist in protest to the Catholic Church and they built themselves solidly on the foundation erected by the Catholic Church. This is the message of Newman. This is why “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

The fact that I explain why God told Joseph Smith to not join any church and that direction included the Catholic Church is homework that I personally felt I had to complete. I originally saw the apostasy as a necessary event to explain the doctrinal restorations and the miracles of the CoJCoLDS foundation. After all if there was no need for the CoJCoLDS why would God appear to Joseph Smith. In response to the question of what in history do I see that witnesses the apostasy, I have become one who protests. But this is only to explain more clearly the reason behind my positions (however flawed they may be).

I know of perhaps 3 Catholics who have put forth similar things concerning the CoJCoLDS. Two specifically referencing Newman, and one in a very general way.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

TOmNossor:

The fact that I explain why God told Joseph Smith to not join any church and that direction included the Catholic Church is homework that I personally felt I had to complete. I originally saw the apostasy as a necessary event to explain the doctrinal restorations and the miracles of the CoJCoLDS foundation. After all if there was no need for the CoJCoLDS why would God appear to Joseph Smith.

Tom,

you haven’t established that God ever appeared to Smith and had him establish a Church that believed things in direct conflict to what Jesus taught. And there is no evidence for an apostasy, there for, if there wasn’t an apostasy and the Church that Christ established really will never have hell prevail against it as is quoted in scripture why the mormon church is needed at all or even warented.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tyler Smedley:

Tom,

you haven’t established that God ever appeared to Smith and had him establish a Church that believed things in direct conflict to what Jesus taught. And there is no evidence for an apostasy, there for, if there wasn’t an apostasy and the Church that Christ established really will never have hell prevail against it as is quoted in scripture why the mormon church is needed at all or even warented.

If you have time, you are welcome to read through this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4383

I address Matthew 16:18 quoting two modern Catholics.
I address evidence for the apostasy in Catholic history.

It would take time travel to show that God appeared to Joseph Smith, but based on what came through Joseph Smith, I find plenty of reason to believe that God guided him.

Charity, TOm

 

[reggie]

I have just a few thoughts regarding this thread. First, I haven’t seen anything posted by a Catholic that states that RCC are allowed to attend and receive communion in Eastern Rite and Orthodox churches. While they do not recognize the primacy of Rome, most of their doctrine is the same as ours and we can receive communion there knowing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Also, while the arguement that the Christian church of the 1st century is not the same as the church of our time is true, But only the outward appearances. It is human nature to want to show our love of God in grand gestures even if He doesn’t need these things, we do. Remember the Transfiguration, Peter immediately wanted to built three tents to honor Moses, Elijah and Jesus.But the basic practices are the same and the core beliefs are the same. Read ST. Justin the Martyr’s description of the mass written in 150AD and you cannot fail to recognize the Catholic Mass. As regards to Joseph Smith, I myself can’t believe how intelligent people can take him seriously. The Church believes that Jesus was the LAST PROPHET and all revelation ended with Him. This is true, but, the Truth is like a dark room, from the little light of dawn, you can see somewhat, like only the shadows and edges of objects. As the light continues to illuminate the room, all becomes clearer and clearer. That is how the Holy Spirit has worked in the Catholic Church.
As far as infallibility, I find it sad that so many people are misled by protestanism. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are churches. Ask these men if they are infallible and when they tell you no, then ask, why should I listen to you? I want someone to tell me the truth and there is only one who does. That is the Roman Catholic Church who has never changed her position on doctrine, who stands up to the tide of public opinion and states the truth even though ridiculed, attacked and slandered by everyone. Our Holy Father has never watered down his beliefs even when many Catholics themselves want him to. Thank God for His Church, and thank you Lord that I am a part of it, because of Your Grace and love and not for anything I have done.

 

[Calvin]

reggie:

I have just a few thoughts regarding this thread. First, I haven’t seen anything posted by a Catholic that states that RCC are allowed to attend and receive communion in Eastern Rite and Orthodox churches. While they do not recognize the primacy of Rome, most of their doctrine is the same as ours and we can receive communion there knowing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

[tangent]

Under normal circumstances, the Orthodox will not allow a Catholic to receive the Eucharist in their temples.

The Catholic Church invites Eastern Orthodox to have communion but it is “subject to the discipline of your own communions.” Those communions teach that Orthodox Christians should not receive communion in a Catholic (or any non-Orthodox) church.

-C

[/tangent]

 

[MYSTERIOUS_An-D]

TomNossor,

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on the topic of discusion. However I must call into question the historical accuracy of your comments based on the reputation of Mormon Doctrine. Mormonism is riddled with historical flaws and has problems backing its claims with any form of archeological evidence of any kind. The Book of Mormon and other parts of Mormon Doctrine have changed so drasticly since its beginnings that I am very skeptical of its place in Christianity. I am not suggesting that the comments you make about the Catholic Churches claims are inaccurate, but I need some clarification from another sources which backs the claims you are making.

 

[MYSTERIOUS_An-D]

reggie:

As far as infallibility, I find it sad that so many people are misled by protestanism. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are churches. Ask these men if they are infallible and when they tell you no, then ask, why should I listen to you? I want someone to tell me the truth and there is only one who does. That is the Roman Catholic Church who has never changed her position on doctrine, who stands up to the tide of public opinion and states the truth even though ridiculed, attacked and slandered by everyone. Our Holy Father has never watered down his beliefs even when many Catholics themselves want him to. Thank God for His Church, and thank you Lord that I am a part of it, because of Your Grace and love and not for anything I have done.

I can see that you hold the Catholic Church in high regard and are quick to speak out about your commitment to it. Taking jabs at the Protestant Church doesn’t answer my question though. So please, in a concise way, explain to me the following:

The reason most Protestants call the Churches claim to infallibility into question is because it is run by fallible people. Not to say that these people aren’t leading as pure of a life as they possibly can, by sin is in our nature. I have been told the arguement that the institution of the Church is infallible while the people running it are not infallible. I could use some more clarification on this, but it would seem to me that if you take the people out of the Church itself, then the institution no longer exists. People are what make up the Church, and so therefore it is impossible for it to be infallible.

With regard to your statement about listening to fallible people. God uses people for His glory whether there is sin in their lives or not. A perfect example of this is David. This is a man after Gods own heart, yet his sinful nature was a stumbling block for him. This isn’t to say that God let those sins go unpunished (the death of his first born to Sheba), but what it does say is that God is able to work around the sins so that his will is shown.

 

[JoaoMachado]

MYSTERIOUS An-D:

With regard to your statement about listening to fallible people. God uses people for His glory whether there is sin in their lives or not. A perfect example of this is David. This is a man after Gods own heart, yet his sinful nature was a stumbling block for him. This isn’t to say that God let those sins go unpunished (the death of his first born to Sheba), but what it does say is that God is able to work around the sins so that his will is shown.

I sure hope you are not trying to compare David with the Reformers. David, had a Position. Christ was born from the line of David, Christ passed the Great Commission to the Apostles, and the Apostles pass on the Mission by the laying on of hands. The Reformers had no Mission from God or Christ (one and the same).

Joao

 

[reggie]

I understand the reason people have such problems with “infallibility” because it’s true that we are all human and subject to human weaknesses. It’s also true that there were and are leaders in the Church who are less than holy. When a Catholic says that the Pope is infallible then we are affirming our believe in everything Jesus said and promised. He said He would not leave us orphans and that He would send the Paraclete(Holy Spirit) to remind them what He taught and lead them to all truth. When a Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and doctrine, things all Catholics must believe to be in full communion, He is being led by the Holy Spirit who would not let us be led wrongly. We have to have faith in something that is bigger that us, something we can’t see or put our hands on. This is faith, this is what it’s all about. We believe in God, we believe in Jesus, and we believe in the Holy Spirit. None of whom we can see or put our hands on,and from that faith comes trust in the love the Trinity has for us. There is a Truth, it cannot be changed, someone must proclaim and teach it. There are not 33,000 some odd valid truths and interpretations. The Holy Spirit is not leading everyone to figure it out for themselves. The church is there to guide, instruct and act as conductor of Jesus’ grace.
Now there have been many times when a pope was not of a very high moral caliber. The indulgences which so angered Luther because of the fact that the money gained from them was used to support the hierarchy in a oppulent and decadent manner were not doctrine that all were bound to believe. But I firmly believe that the Lord honored each and everyone because He told the Apostles that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. He better that anyone knew that the Church would sometimes be lead by the wrong men. He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her, He did not say that the Devil wouldn’t try over and over again to bring her down. Trust in the Lord all men and He will give you rest. I don’ t have to worry about every passage of Scripture and what it means. I have the comfort of the Church Jesus founded to help me. I am not alone. It’s that simple.