Protestant saying hello

[reteeks21]

And when speaking of ‘interpretations’ of men…let’s be honest. The Protestant faith has spun off in literally thousands of different sects and denominations, laregly due to various lay people interpretating Scripture–in some instances, wrongly. So…going with that – which Protestant faith is correct? Are Baptists? Lutherans? Non denom? Methodists? The list goes on and on…which denomination is correct in interpreting Scripture? If a person is Baptist, I would imagine that he/she feels that Methodists have it wrong…if a person is Methodist, then he/she might think that Lutherans have it wrong.

So…if all of them are following the same Scripture…why so many sects?

And your church has never messed up in its interpretations? Quit assuming that because your church name still exists that your interpretations have never led anyone astray.

 

[justasking4]

Well if that is the case why are the church fathers given so much credit? Should we not follow the words who were there or extremely close to the ones who were there rather than clinging so tightly to ones who came YEARS after?

The fathers writings can be helpful but not essential. Just because they may have kived closer to the apostles in time doesn’t mean they always understood what they taught. Its my understanding that the catholic church rejects some of what these fathers wrote.

 

[guanophore]

A theological system is different than the scriptures.

Oh, I agree entirely! That is why I keep saying that Scripture does not 'teach" itself. The Scripture was never intended to take on the task that Jesus assigned to the Church (“teach all that I have commanded”). Scripture is profitable toward that end, but was not meant to be separated from the Apostolic Commission.

I’m not sure what these 23 Rites in the catholic church are. How are they different?

There differences are largely cultural and language. In doctrine, they are the same. But you ascribe things to the “Roman” Rite that do not belong exclusively. The Roman Rite was one of the later Rites to develop, since the Church developed first in the East (Jerusalem and Antioch).

Are you claiming all that your church teaches be it by pope, councils and individuals is by His guidance?

When you use the words “your church”, ja4, it leaves the reader with the impression that you are not aware that there is only One Church, and One Body, and that all who are in Christ are members of it.

Sure, God gives individual guidance to all those who ask. For a teaching to be considered infallible, though, it needs to meet very strict criteria.

2 Timothy 2:12 addresses this when Paul writes:
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

Right. So, it was sometime after the first 400 years that Catholics “abandoned Christ”. Do you any sense about when and how this happened?

Where did Jesus say to follow tradition?

Matt 23:1-3
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you

 

[Lampo]

Has everyone seen this one?:

“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.”

• St. Augustine, The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.

 

[whatevergirl]

He makes it clear that His words take precedence throughout all of Scripture. The words in the canon were written on purpose so there would not be any doubt as to how we should live. I.e, to keep people from perverting what Christ said. Paul makes that abundantly clear. And by the way, I am not making up history to suit myself. Luther did not protest the CC; he protested some of their sick and unscriptural practices that derived out of tradtion. So it would stand that if a man does the opposite of the words of Christ-which I put more sotck in than the words of man-he should be called on it. That is all Luther did. So please do not start on a rant about how Luther led a heretical movement because we have been smacked with that enough. When you are confronted with historical truth about the Reformation there is nothing that can be brought up that negates it other that “well, the church teaches…” Even John Paul II said Luther did not do anything heretical, so why is that constanly brought up here? Christ never referenced tradtions; He spoke of what HE said, and what He said is exactly what Paul was handing down.

Actually, in studying Luther, I have noticed that a lot of what he protested was not really happening. Yes, there were grave abuses by clergy, but there aren’t anymore…so Luther started something different because he didn’t believe that the Church was founded on Christ. If he did, he would have realized that priests/popes are fallible, and that justice would come for the Church. Meaning–if you look at the Church today, clearly there have been priests misusing authority…but that is not Christ’s teachings. The RCC always upholds Christ’s teachings, albeit some throughout the years have perverted things for their own agendas, etc. Again–the things that happened during Luther’s time does not constitute what the RCC was intended to be. There are perversions in the Protestant faiths, as well, frankly…I suppose this is why there are so many spinoffs, because once someone finds disagreement with another tenet, they spawn a few denomination…new set of rules, etc. Luther protested against the Church perhaps well intentioned – but he never believed that the RCC was founded on Christ. If he did, he would not have left–no matter what was happening within the Church. Which is why Protestants to this day, do not believe that Peter was the first Pope, etc…their ‘founder’ taught them not to believe it.

 

[reteeks21]

Actually, in studying Luther, I have noticed that a lot of what he protested was not really happening. Yes, there were grave abuses by clergy, but there aren’t anymore…so Luther started something different because he didn’t believe that the Church was founded on Christ. If he did, he would have realized that priests/popes are fallible, and that justice would come for the Church. Meaning–if you look at the Church today, clearly there have been priests misusing authority…but that is not Christ’s teachings. The RCC always upholds Christ’s teachings, albeit some throughout the years have perverted things for their own agendas, etc. Again–the things that happened during Luther’s time does not constitute what the RCC was intended to be. There are perversions in the Protestant faiths, as well, frankly…I suppose this is why there are so many spinoffs, because once someone finds disagreement with another tenet, they spawn a few denomination…new set of rules, etc. Luther protested against the Church perhaps well intentioned – but he never believed that the RCC was founded on Christ. If he did, he would not have left–no matter what was happening within the Church.

He never said that the RCC was not founded on Christ. If so, why did he say over and over that he intended to remain a Catholic? I have spoken to priests and Protestant clergy who said that Luther’s intention was to never “spin-off” a new church. They have all, without exception, said that he intended to bring the church back to Christ’s teachings. What have you seen that says very few of those things that he was trying to reform were not happening? I know: Luther made it all up, didn’t he?

 

[whatevergirl]

And your church has never messed up in its interpretations? Quit assuming that because your church name still exists that your interpretations have never led anyone astray.

Popes are fallible, but their interpretation of Scripture is not. Popes/priests throughout the ages have certainly messed up and MISUSED Scripture and authority – yes that is true. I don’t defend any actions whereby Christ was not upheld, that the Church has done. I’m not sure what you mean by led astray…meaning, the Church led someone down the wrong moral path–because they interpreted Scripture incorrectly?

 

[reteeks21]

Popes are fallible, but their interpretation of Scripture is not. Popes/priests throughout the ages have certainly messed up and MISUSED Scripture and authority – yes that is true. I don’t defend any actions whereby Christ was not upheld, that the Church has done. I’m not sure what you mean by led astray…meaning, the Church led someone down the wrong moral path–because they interpreted Scripture incorrectly?

Where do you find any basis for saying popes never interpret the scripture infallibly?

 

[whatevergirl]

He never said that the RCC was not founded on Christ. If so, why did he say over and over that he intended to remain a Catholic? I have spoken to priests and Protestant clergy who said that Luther’s intention was to never “spin-off” a new church. They have all, without exception, said that he intended to bring the church back to Christ’s teachings. What have you seen that says very few of those things that he was trying to reform were not happening? I know: Luther made it all up, didn’t he?

I didn’t state that quite right–not that he made it up. But, for example-Luther had a problem with people ‘paying for penance.’ Well, that actually was not the case. During Luther’s time, and preceding, people were asked commonly, to do almsgiving, as a form of penance…so, thus, the church appeared to be accepting monies for penance. (paying to be absolved of sins) That was not in fact a truth, but Luther presented it to appear like that is what people were doing. I could name others, but I will come back later. So, no he didn’t make it up–but the full story isn’t always revealed. I still have my Protestant inlaws, some of them, tell me that very story as a reason they could never ‘belong’ to the RCC. So, it’s either a wives’ tale, or there is some truth to it, within Lutheran circles. If Luther intended to bring the Church ‘back to Christ’s teachings’…why don’t Lutheran go to confession? Why is there no priesthood or clergy? (Apostolic succession) Why do so many Lutherans believe that Catholics worship Mary, when we clearly don’t? If he wanted to keep in stride with Christ’s teachings, he would look to how Christ conducted His Ministry, and would have mirrored it…but, when we cherry pick things out of the Bible, we do not have Christ’s teachings…we have a ‘cafeteria’ style version of Christianty. Just my opinion.

I would love to have a roundtable discussion, in person, with people of different Christian faiths to really get a better understanding of why these differences exist.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3442035]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you claiming all that your church teaches be it by pope, councils and individuals is by His guidance?

guanophore
When you use the words “your church”, ja4, it leaves the reader with the impression that you are not aware that there is only One Church, and One Body, and that all who are in Christ are members of it.

When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches and calls them “communities” then when we are speaking of the church it is important to keep the important distinctions in mind. We are not the same thing.

Sure, God gives individual guidance to all those who ask. For a teaching to be considered infallible, though, it needs to meet very strict criteria.

 

[Lampo]

When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches…

Did Jesus found “Churches” or a “Church”?

 

[whatevergirl]

Where do you find any basis for saying popes never interpret the scripture infallibly?

Hi again;

To say that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ’s promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. I have to run, but will be back later to discuss more, if you like.

I have enjoyed chatting…thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus was a Christian. So are some Protestants. Jesus was indeed a Protestant! Jesus was always protesting the pagan-like religious leaders and church leaders of the day:

Those religious leaders of Jesus’ day were the ‘Catholics’ that broke away from the “Protestants.” BTW, the Reformation did not start with Luther. It was continued by him.

Jesus was a Christian? So was he a follower of Christ?
I guess Karl Marx was a Marxist and Mao Tse Tung a Maoist.

I agree that Luther continued the so-called Reformation, but it wasn’t started by Christ. Does Valentinus ring a bell? This second century heretic claimed that the visible world was created by the God of the Old Testament, but that only the invisible or spiritual world was real. Christ came to the world to deliver us from the bondage of physical matter which is intrinsically evil, although the Bible teaches us that God saw all he had made and called it good. According to Val, since most human beings are engrossed in matter, the bulk of mankind will be damned, except for the elected few (members of the Valentinian sect). The great Catholic Church Father, St. Irenaeus, condemned this Gnostic heresy (which smacks of Calvinism) in his work ‘Against Heresies’. Marcion took the torch a few years later to create a new form of heresy based on his fallible interpretations of Scripture opposed to Sacred Tradition. And so on ad finitum. After he came along in his moodiness, Martin Luther served to create the great irreparable schism that has gone totally out of control within Christendom outside the confines of the Church. This was not our Lord’s intention (cf. Mt 16, 17-19). Jesus said nothing about countless independent churches being formed on diverse disagreements and revolts, each group appealling to “inerrant and God-breathed” Scripture. Somebody must be absolutely right in the matter of faith and morals or else there would have been no point for Jesus to send the Paraclete. The Spirit of truth can only be present where there is a unity of faith, which is not found in the Protestant tradition of men, who include Ellen White, the 19th century founder of the SDAs, another heretical sect - but not formed from within the Church. We can breathe a sigh of relief on this score.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Did Jesus found “Churches” or a “Church”?

Before i can answer this what is your defintion of church? What is it composed of?

 

[Lampo]

Before i can answer this what is your defintion of church? What is it composed of?

Why don’t you use scripture alone instead of my definition?

 

[Lampo]

Before i can answer this what is your defintion of church? What is it composed of?

I like this definition:

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

 

[guanophore]

I know. Now can you show me in Scripture where this gift is spoken of or is it in some kind of Sacred Tradition that cannot be shown?

Let me get this straight. You are asking to be shown something that cannot be shown? No, I cannot show you such a thing.

Did not Jesus use analogies in His teachings without always taking everything into consideration? For instances calling believers “branches” as in John 15. Branches don’t have minds, hearts, will and not made in the likeness of God and yet i would think you know what He meant. So it is with my analogy that the church was like a paintbrush that an artistuses to paint a picture.

Branches are alive, and draw their life from the Root of Jesse. They live, and move, and have their being in Him. If they are cut off from Him, they are cut off from the source of life. Jesus worked through human beings to create the inspired-inerrant scripture. He did not treat men like “tools”. He filled their minds and hearts with what He wanted to say, and they wrote it.

Where are you getting this idea from? I have never said such a thing. What should blow your mind is that the catholic church claims to be the only authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet they have interpreted less than 20 verses. That is the mind blower.

You have said many times that God never promised to lead them into all truth. You have said many times that Jesus failed in His promise to remain with them until the end of the age. I just read in another post where you said that the Church Fathers did not understand the Apostles teaching. If they “lost” it the very first generation,then that means Jesus did not watch over his word to perform it.

Catholics interpret scripture as we were taught to do by Jesus through the Apostles. This is done according to Divine Revelation,and not peicemealing the scriptures as modern day fundamentalists have been taught.

Oral teachings yes. Not sure what you mean by tradition.

Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Later, some of these were committed to writing in the NT. The NT itself commands us to “hold fast” to the Traditions. There is never any commandment to abandon them.

I would think you would know this by now that there is not one verse in Scripture of a person on earth is exhorted to pray to some human who has died. Not one.

There is no table of contents there either, and the word Trinity, but that does not make them any less valid. Not all of what the Apostles taught is found in scripture. What we do have in scripture is multiple exhortations to pray for one another, and references to the fact that those in Christ will never die, but will live forever.

Paul makes it clear that those in Christ who leave the body are “at home” with the Lord, and are able to please Him also in that state.

2 Cor 5:6-9
6 So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him."

How does one please God, in this world, and the next?

Phil 1:20-25
I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 2

To die is gain, because the believer departs to be with Christ. Why would a person want to stop interceding for the saints, now that he is with God?

 

[guanophore]

What is this communion of saints you speak of? If you are saying its the living and the dead that compose the body of Christ then i would accept that. What i don’t accept is some kind of communication between the dead and living. That is something the Scriptures are against.

I agree, but we believe that those who are in Christ never die. They leave the body, but then they are at home with the Lord. We do not commune with the dead, but the living! Jesus was not having a little chat with a couple of corpses. Moses and Elijah are alive! The saints who have gone on before us are alive! How can anyone be a witness, if one is not alive?

Heb 12:1
12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses…"

dead people can’t witness! This is part of the Apostolic Teaching that God lost when the Scriptures were separated from the Sacred tradition that produced them.

You have no way of really knowing who is in heaven though. You also don’t know if they might be in purgatory or hell.

We only know those that have been revealed to us by God. Personally, I don’t believe that the Apostle Paul is in hell, do you?

You don't know this. You have no way to know if they can hear your thoughts or prayers but you must assume they can. The only One we know with certainity is close to God and can intercede for us is Jesus Who is our Great High Priest who is constantly interceding for us before the Father. Only Jesus has this High Priest role. Not Mary or the saints are ever spoke of having this role.

God is gracious, and has allowed disciples to enter into His eternal ministry of intercession and mediation. They can hear whatever God allows them to hear. Just like Samuel was permitted to appear to Saul and give him a prophetic word. Saul used illicit methods, but God allowed Samuel to hear Saul, and to speak to him. Now faith, ja4, is the evidence of things not seen. Catholics have 2000 of evidence the saints can, and do, hear our prayers according to the will of God.

Where did Jesus teach we are to pray to someone who has died?
Where did He teach that you need those who have died and those who died need you?
How do you know the needs of those who died?

Jesus taught that God is the God of the living, not the dead. Jesus taught that we should pray for one another. He taught that some people get stuck in their progress to heaven, and need help to get unstuck. We are all to bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ. Some people’s needs are revealed, some are evident. I don’t really need to know what they need, because God knows what they have need of before I ask it. That is why, at Mass every day, we pray for “those who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again”.

When the leader of your church insults protestants by refusing to acknowledge what they are–churches and calls them “communities” then when we are speaking of the church it is important to keep the important distinctions in mind. We are not the same thing.

Jesus founded one Church, ja4. That one church is his body. He only has One Body. The Church is His Bride. He is not a polygamist. Yes, there is disunity and separation in HIs body, because we are not all in perfect unity with the Truth. To pretend that this disunity does not exist is not loving.

We are all members of the One Body.

 

[guanophore]

The fathers writings can be helpful but not essential. Just because they may have kived closer to the apostles in time doesn’t mean they always understood what they taught. Its my understanding that the catholic church rejects some of what these fathers wrote.

No, but we are not talking about Pagan masses here. These are disciples who received the Apostolic Teaching. What possible reason would there be for not understanding what they taught? When Jesus told the Apostles “teaching all that I have commanded”, do you think He did not give them the Power to do what He commanded? Or is He too weak to watch over His word to perform it?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Where do you find any basis for saying popes never interpret the scripture infallibly?

The Church is the Pillar and Bullwark of All Truth.

:knight1: