Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Wannano]

Arianism almost tore the Church apart.

Didn’t happen thanks to the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Does protestantism have such a promise?

I’d argue that they do not. Not that Christ wont spiritually be with His protestant believers, but He wont necessarily hold those particular institutions up.

For my sake can you expound more on this? Particularly the part about the promise of the Holy Spirit in reference to holding up institutions?

 

[benhur]

Thank you for your responses. But regardless of your very studied replies, you have to admit that the fruits of Protestantism, perhaps not anticipated by the Reformer pioneers, have opened a Pandora box of everyone for themselves. And the pace of disintegration is accelerating and with each decade more and more DIY churches with customizeable doctrines. I very much doubt that is the will of the Holy Spirit. Even if you can’t accept the dogmas regarding Mary, at least reconsider the Eucharist. It is Scriptural, accepted by all early Christians and backed up by historical support.

Since both of us have stated our stance and defended it, I think more of that wouldn’t be helpful. We can only pray for unity. Peace.

And thank you ericc for sharpening me to
“studied” responses.Thanks for the compliment.

Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi Wanna,

I will probably get burned by this but what strikes me as obvious is that the CC should have responded with the love of Christ to people who interpret Jesus’ teachings differently than them. To torture and kill in ways unimaginable only fueled the Reformation processes as onlookers witnessed the murders of people who died singing and praising God.

I don’t know where you learned that ‘version’ of the history of the Reformation, but it sounds like the same kind of thing that I learned growing up as a Protestant. I sometimes refer to it as ‘The Legend’. If you would like I can suggest some excellent books, including many that are written by Protestants, which will help you gain a better understanding of what actually happened.

God Bless You Wanna, Topper

 

[Rohzek]

That is precisely the point I made earlier when I said proof texting doesn’t really carry much weight. Whether it is one-liners or a whole essay, one can create the impression that is the whole truth. But is it?

Herein lies your fallacy. One-liners and whole paragraphs/excerpts are very much different, in addition to genres of literature having some sort of bearing. You see, you provided one liners from letters, which are easily taken out of context. The genre I pulled from however, with full excerpts, is exegesis. Exegesis is much more difficult to take out of context.

My one-liners may be in bits and pieces, but they illustrate the point that keys were given to Peter.

Wait a minute. You claim that one-liners aren’t useful. But then you quote liners. Then in this post, you claim they aren’t useful for the reasons I suggested again but that they somehow make a point, and thus you are right. You’re all over the place, and it seems to me that you don’t even understand your own position.

If these one-liners are true and they do exist, who are you to say not to take them seriously?

Well, why would I take them seriously if they aren’t provided context? I provided context, you didn’t. Therein lies the difference.

(Actually these were not one-liners, I didn’t provide the rest because I just want to demonstrate the point of preferential filtering.)

Except that your point doesn’t apply because I provided context and you didn’t.

Out of context? So Peter didn’t get his keys? And all these Saints and Fathers thought he actually had them all these while? What a bummer.

When did I say that Peter didn’t get his keys? Are you even reading my arguments?

You are mistaken. The other apostles were later given the power to bind and loose. They were not given the Keys.

And yet if you read what I posted, St. Hilary of Poitiers, pseudo-Bede, St. Paschasius Radbertus, St. Hrabanus Maurus, Dungal of Bobbio, and St. Bruno of Segni all clearly contradict this. Take note, they are commenting line-by-line on Matthew 16:18-19. They identify the keys as the powers of binding and loosing. And then they go on to say that Jesus later gave those same exact keys, hence powers, to the rest of the apostles. Keys=powers for them. They aren’t separate.

The Fathers that you quoted, where did they get their keys? On whose divine command?

From God.

I am impressed by your academic qualifications. So you are right and I am wrong?

I’m not right by virtue of my credentials, but rather the merits of my own arguments. And perhaps you should at least take my arguments a bit more seriously rather than totally either not reading them carefully or not reading them at all. Every counter-point you have brought up was already addressed in my original link/post.

All I am saying is I know where Peter’s keys come from. I don’t know who gave those Fathers you quoted the keys. You just need to show that either Christ gave them the keys or Peter gave them the keys subsequently.

I already did show them. You are simply not reading at all or closely enough.

I’ll just quote a few from Orthodox Understanding of Peter as the Rock and the Keys From Latin Writers:

Had ye seen, O holy and blessed men (the apostles), who for the reward of your faith have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and to loose in heaven and earth, works so great, so truly Divine, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and do ye yet profess that it was not until He had first told you that He had gone forth from God that you attained the knowledge of the truth?

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.33

**The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are for discerning knowledge, and the power which receives the worthy into the Kingdom, and excludes the unworthy ought to be understood. **And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. This [applies] as much to Peter as to the all of the apostles and their successors, who hold the same office rightly we lend permission, because he himself appears to them after the passion, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; every sin that you forgive are forgiven; and every sin that you retain are retained…

Dungal of Bobbio’s EXPOSITIO IN MATTHAEUM EVANGELISTAM, Patrologia Latina 106: 1396D; 1397A – 1397B

I assume the keys are different because you haven’t shown that these are Peter’s.

Yes, I have. And you assume wrong. There isn’t a single mention of a separate pair of keys given to the rest of the apostles or the faithful. You won’t find it in any Patristic text or post-Patristic text. You won’t even find it in a modern Catholic text, because you made it up.

If Peter shut, can your keys open? And if Peter closes, can your keys open? If not, they are different keys, correct?

That’s your problem of understanding. You figure it out. One pope can open and the next pope can close under your logic. Doesn’t that pose the same problem?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That makes no sense. How could it stem from SS. The books these groups follow are not plagiarized, but ADDED to. Seems the book of Revelation has something to say about that. Ask an author whose work was added too or had passages removed, whether thy still consider it their work.
The Islam remark is just silly. Islam began in the 6th century, long before a concept of SS.

No, Islam example makes perfect sense. Talk to Muslims. Some of them are former bible believing, SS practicing Christians who claim that scripture I gave you led them to Islam.

LDS folks say that Jesus saying “I have other sheep, not of this fold” is referring to THEM, and their leader Joseph Smith. (john 10:16)

And that book of revelation quote, many say it’s just referring to that particular book and not the entire bible. Not even sure if the Church has a position on it.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wanna,

I don’t know where you learned that ‘version’ of the history of the Reformation, but it sounds like the same kind of thing that I learned growing up as a Protestant. I sometimes refer to it as ‘The Legend’. If you would like I can suggest some excellent books, including many that are written by Protestants, which will help you gain a better understanding of what actually happened.

God Bless You Wanna, Topper

I have read many books regarding this subject. To say this never actually happened is so bizarre. Anyway, you asked what the CC could have done differently in dealing with the heretics and I offered an answer. How different Christendom might look today if Christ’s followers had practiced His teaching through the centuries.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

For my sake can you expound more on this? Particularly the part about the promise of the Holy Spirit in reference to holding up institutions?

Sure, but protestants don’t believe it is referring to the Catholic church

Matthew 16:16-19New International Version (NIV)

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

Notice how it says, “church”, not churches. The Catholic church is the oldest living institution on earth. The Jews, Romans, Muslims and even some protestants attempted to destroy her and they all failed.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Sorry, Wannabo, multi tasking here didn’t finish my previous post.

Jesus promised the Church here on earth he would remain with Her through the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:20 /John 20:22

The promise of infallibility doesn’t directly say “Holy Spirit” in Matthew 16. Just says it wont fail.

But since Jesus ascended I’m drawing a logical conclusion from those scriptures, among others.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have read many books regarding this subject. To say this never actually happened is so bizarre. Anyway, you asked what the CC could have done differently in dealing with the heretics and I offered an answer. How different Christendom might look today if Christ’s followers had practiced His teaching through the centuries.

Had the Church moved a little faster and showed a little more humility then maybe Luther doesn’t break. Especially in regards to his main beef of indulgences.

But, I think it was bound to happen at some point, if not Luther, somebody else. We are all prideful beings.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13757568]
I have NOT been throwing stones at anyone. I have been posting the FACTS and also my opinions. I will tell you though Jon, I will oppose anyone and any organization which depicts the Pope as the antichrist, in ANY way shape or form. Thankfully, it is only a small slice of Lutheranism which holds to that silly accusation.

Well, this answers my question as to why you have such a radical anti-Luther, anti-Lutheran bias. Actually, I’m sorry that this seems to be the source of your vitriol, as there is nothing I can do about it. What is interesting however is the number of times even in this thread you have spoken of us, of me, as holding heretical beliefs. Frankly, it is just as offensive as the charge by the Lutheran reformers that some of the teachings regarding the papal office is opposed to Christ. Why, even here, again, after all the Lutherans who have here countless times corrected your constant misrepresentation of our teaching regarding this, you misrepresent the teaching. I will not post the LCMS teaching again because the countless times before, that we do not hold individual popes as The Antichrist, you have chosen to ignore.

But the LCMS is not part of that Agreement and is not part of the much larger LWF, which in fact is about 20 times larger than the ILC – correct? Are you in alter and pulpit fellowship with the Anglican communities also, or even the LWF Lutherans? No. As such I find it strange that you would point to the LWF as being an example of ecumenism, when your Lutheran community is not in fellowship with them.

No where did I say it was. You have, as usual, misrepresented Lutheranism, implying that simply because our polity is local, synodical, national, that this means that all of these synods are not in communion with each other.

In addition, it is my understanding that each of those 270 Lutheran communities have the absolute authority to establish or revise doctrines and practices, for themselves, as they see fit, and also to join or leave one or any of the other various overarching Organizations at any time they wish. This means that they are doctrinally independent from any other organization.

They are not doctrinally independent from each other if they join together in unity. Yours is simply a polemical position, and we see where it comes from in your admission above.
But why wouldn’t I recognize their efforts in ecumenism? It seems to me kind of silly to ignore their ecumenical efforts simply because we are not in communion with them.

The divisions are caused by ‘moving away from Sola Scriptura’? Does that mean moving away from **your particular version **of Sola Scriptura or does it mean moving away from some universally agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura? Do those who have ‘moved away’ agree with you that they have, or do they have some kind of ‘alternate explanation’ with regard to their separation from you, or alternately, your separation from them?

Not mine. I don’'t have a particular version of sola scriptura. Why would there be a universally agreed upon version. After all, there is no universally agreed upon understanding of how Tradition and Scripture works, what is or is not an ecumenical council. Thge Old Catholics use Scripture and Tradition. Some even ordain women. Clearly, since Rome also uses Scripture and Tradition, Rome is at fault. ( Not really, that’s just your argument in reverse.)
You see, Topper, none of what you say adds anything to the dialogue.

So then, the Apostles are partly responsible for the Gnostic heresy. Is that correct or not Jon? Yes or no? According to your logic the Apostles MUST be partly responsible, but I doubt that you would be willing to state that.

Of course not. They chose their own way. If I were to say the Apostles were responsible for the Gnostics, that would be as ludicrous as your constant refrain that Luther is responsible for all manner of so-called protestants.

As a matter of fact, you and I have both proved the point by our actions. Each of us have converted to something that we think was ‘better’. So, yes, we DO make our own choices as to what communion to be a part of.

:clapping: So, we can put to rest the nonsense that Luther is responsible for all protestants

Jon, as you know full well, that 240 number is hogwash because the vast majority of those communions are in communion with Rome in EVERY way.

Of course it is hogwash, just like you saying because our polity is different, that this must mean there are 270 different Lutheran traditions.

In addition, I would say that if the 30,000 figure bothers you, or if you believe that Protestantism should not be labeled as a heresy, I would suggest that you contact Catholic Answers and ask them to change those ‘details’ in the tract “The Great Heresies”.

It doesn’t bother me because it, too, is hogwash. But just remember, while you complain and whine about the use of the term anti-Christ, you continually use an equally offensive term towards me. I don’t ever bring up the teachings that caused that charge, nor do I bring up the heresy charge against us because it overtakes any dialogue. You seem to have no problem bringing it up.

If you can get them to change either that designation or the number, then I will follow suit. Until then I will use that NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR approved designation and numbers used in that article. Please let me know how that turns out. In this respect, clearly I am supporting the Catholic Answers and Catholic Church position and you are opposing them both.

If that’s what you want to do, be my guest. I guess you don’t mind the 240 some Catholic Churches number either.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Hi T,

The Gnostics, were they even Christian, in the end, even at the beginning, as John asks in his epistles ?

Most reformers were quite Catholic, even some clergy. Apples to oranges, this Gnostic thing.

According to the same Catholic Answers tract that I keep referencing, yes the Gnostics were Christian. So, with regard to the comparison to Protestant, it is an apples to apples thing.

And yes, the Reformers were Catholic, but only when they started out. Once they had Revolted against the Church and refused to be corrected, then they were no longer.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Wannano]

Sure, but protestants don’t believe it is referring to the Catholic church

Notice how it says, “church”, not churches. The Catholic church is the oldest living institution on earth. The Jews, Romans, Muslims and even some protestants attempted to destroy her and they all failed.

Have a blessed day.

I guess I have been taught and am satisfied with the concept that individuals collectively make up the Church. Individually we are accountable to God for our lives and when we face Him at our end I really do not believe He will ask what church I belonged to. It will be my individual faith, belief and actions that He wil judge. So this so called Protestant wants to go on record as saying that I am very sure there wIll be many from the Catholic Church who also make up the Bride. And, yes, the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I agree it is “church” not churches or Churches. Firstly I am a Christian because I beleive in Jesus Christ, secondly I am a “whatever” because of preference, upbringing, culture etc.

So obviously you may not agree with me and that is fine but that does not justify hatred toward each other. Ultimately we will all find out how God drew up the blueprint. And then maybe we won’t either, ,maybe when we all see Him we will be so enraptured with His presence that our need to know will disappear.

Just an aside, would not the Jewish religious institution be older than the Catholic? Just a thought.

 

[Wannano]

Had the Church moved a little faster and showed a little more humility then maybe Luther doesn’t break. Especially in regards to his main beef of indulgences.

But, I think it was bound to happen at some point, if not Luther, somebody else. We are all prideful beings.

Yes, and each one will be judged accordingly. How we respond to our challenges in our relationship and acceptance of others may have a bearing on our outcome.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I guess I have been taught and am satisfied with the concept that individuals collectively make up the Church. Individually we are accountable to God for our lives and when we face Him at our end I really do not believe He will ask what church I belonged to. It will be my individual faith, belief and actions that He wil judge. So this so called Protestant wants to go on record as saying that I am very sure there wIll be many from the Catholic Church who also make up the Bride. And, yes, the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I agree it is “church” not churches or Churches. Firstly I am a Christian because I beleive in Jesus Christ, secondly I am a “whatever” because of preference, upbringing, culture etc.

So obviously you may not agree with me and that is fine but that does not justify hatred toward each other. Ultimately we will all find out how God drew up the blueprint. And then maybe we won’t either, ,maybe when we all see Him we will be so enraptured with His presence that our need to know will disappear.

Just an aside, would not the Jewish religious institution be older than the Catholic? Just a thought.

Do they still exist anymore in original form? They have changed their bible, (used to rely on septuagint, now dont) edited the Talmud throughout the ages in order to dismiss Christianity, etc, etc. Not to mention all their fragmentation. They lack the consistent pedigree of the RCC, imo.

I definitely think protestants are Christians, many wonderful people who are producing more fruit than many Catholics are, tbh. And I see us being judged in accordance with our knowledge of the Truth and how we responded to it. Luke 12:48

But you’re right about me disagreeing on the Church. If it is not visible and authoritative then scriptures like Matthew 18:17 do not make much sense.

The Lord be with you.

 

[Abu]

Wannano #229
I guess I have been taught and am satisfied with the concept that individuals collectively make up the Church.

There’s no point in blindly putting Christ in eclipse – He built only ONE CHURCH on Peter, and gave Peter primacy and infallibility, and His Church all authority to teach, sanctify and rule.

There is no salvation without His Church whether known or unknown. That is why He gave us also His seven sacraments and His continued sacrifice on our altars. She alone has the fullness of truth and gave us the N.T., infallibly declaring which, of all the writings, form the inspired Word of God in the Bible. There is no Bible without the Catholic Church, some don’t even have seven of the books, thus missing out on vital doctrines, as well as not participating in Christ’s priesthood: “He holds His priesthood permanently.” (Heb 7:24). That is precisely why His continuing priesthood breaks through to our altars at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – in the Mystical Body of Christ which is His Bride, His Church.

To demonstrate clearly that no one else has any authority against His Supreme Vicar and His Church, Christ gave His Supreme Vicars Sole authority.

It is none other than Jesus of Nazareth who proclaimed:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church.” **(Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

The same God the Son who, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

Jesus is not supporting the multitudinous errors of others, here, but guaranteeing His truths in His Church for all time.

The genuinely seeking truth can hardly be “satisfied” until he/she seeks and assents to Christ in His Church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Abu,

What rubbish.

SCHISM. A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. “Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ,” he asks, “and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?” While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. “By false doctrines concerning God,” declared St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.” Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.) [My emphasis]
*Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
.
No one can predict the future with mankind having freewill, and having demonstrated a tendency to schism and heresy.

Great post and very factual and informative.

It seems that there is a idea running through the thread that when someone is rejecting the teaching of the Church, it is the DUTY of the Church to convince them that they are wrong. I agree with this concept VERY much. However, the argument that we see here seems to contend that the Church is somehow responsible for the person’s rejection of Church teaching and that the Church should, seemingly, go on forever trying to convince them that they are wrong. Somehow, some weird somehow, the fact that the person will not recant or retract is somehow, at least HALF the fault of the Church, at least of course, (probably more like 75% - we are talking about the Catholic Church here)

It seems that some people believe that the Church, should it want to escape its responsibility for the rejection of its teaching by an individual, should allow that rejection to go on and on, presumably forever. After all, it might hurt someone’s feelings to be told uncategorically, that they are wrong and that they need to recant or be excommunicated. Of course there are a lot of people who believe that nobody should ever be excommunicated, which means that of course there would be eventually, within the one Church, a TON of conflicting and damaging beliefs that would completely DESTROY the doctrinal unity of that ONE Church. Under this kind of thinking, literally under, the Church has absolutely NO authority. The REAL authority in a ‘system’ such as this, belongs ultimately and entirely to the individual, each and every individual.

Of course the people who seem to believe this kind of thing seem to come from ‘communities’ which are not exactly the model of Unity of Belief, and I would suggest that this kind of thinking is exactly how those ‘ models’ became what they are.

The basic question it seems is this – “Who is responsible for setting doctrine”.

If it is going to be the individual who has the ultimate authority, which is the ONLY logical conclusion once you begin from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, then eventually there will NOT be a doctrinally unified Church as called for by Christ, the Apostles and Scripture. All there will be is a TON of various ‘communities’ which are loosely organized around various issues, most of which will not be doctrinal.

Does the Church have the right to proclaim someone to be a heretic or some belief to be heretical? The first 1500 years of Christian history responds with a resounding YES. Interestingly, it seems that some now believe that it doesn’t. That kind of thinking is I think the direct result of 500 years of Sola Scriptura denigrating the authority of the Church that Christ intended for us ALL, and in fact, denigrating the authority of ALL ecclesiastical communities.

How long is the Church to be expected to cajole and rebut and rebuke and attempt to convince someone who is rejecting the teaching of the Church and REFUSES to be corrected, indicating that they will NEVER allow themselves to be corrected? Would three years be long enough if that three years included a three day meeting with the personal representative of the Pope? Would it be too short a period of time if that three years included a 7 day long debate in which the recalcitrant made even more statements which were clearly in opposition to Catholic teaching and refused to reconsider, appealing to his own personal conscience and ability to interpret Scripture? How about if that three year period included dozens upon dozens of respected Scholars telling that person that they are wrong, very specifically and exactly (of course)?

In other words, how much is the Church supposed to take before it pulls the trigger and excommunicates someone who absolutely refuses to allow the Church to set doctrine, someone who considers their own personal judgment as being superior to that of the WHOLE of Christian history.

Apparently, it would be better, according to some, to allow that kind of rebellion to be protected within the Church, that the Church should accommodate that kind of thing. However, it would only encourage more dissent, and then more and then more and more and more.

Does this make sense Ab, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

Thanks for your response.

Topper, we have to be careful in debating the Protestant philosophy of Scripture Alone that we are not denigrating Scripture in the process.

I agree 100%, except that to me it seems that Sola Scriptura itself DOES lead to the denigrating of Scripture. SS has led to an uncountable number of ‘communities’ who, each one of them, believe that they are interpreting Scripture correctly, with many of them believing that they ‘use’ and interpret Scripture better than all the rest.

Given that all of these various communities are all over the map doctrinally and in terms of their interpretation of Holy Scripture, obviously SOME of them, if not all, are using Scripture and interpreting Scripture incorrectly and doing so without the authority to do so. After all, we cannot say that God gives people the ‘right’ or authority to misinterpret Holy Inspired Scripture. Right?

Being evangelical for nearly two decades gave me a healthy respect for Scripture. And an insight into the structure of the Protestant denominations/groups I was a part of. So, when I say SS is a ‘broken’ system, I am not saying Scripture is broken. I just want to make that clear.

Agreed. It isn’t Scripture that is the problem but illicit interpretations.

If SS were the caricature you are describing, we would see far worse heresy, divisions, and unbelief.

Have you seen what Christian Europe looks like, especially in the almost entirely Protestant countries?

Is THAT bad enough in terms of heresy, divisions and yes, unbelief? How much worse can it get?

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[Topper17]

To LA, post number 207

I was a protestant for 13 years, myself.

I too served time.

And I think ***it is ***as bad as Topper has described. It saddens me as a former protestant and a member of Christendom that we have such horrible division in our faith. And SS is to blame…well, that and human pride.

All that being said, SS is out of control and protestantism needs reform within it’s own ranks. And if they don’t want to except the Catholic Church then they really need their own hierarchy to maintain order.

I think these so called liberal “churches” need to be told by someone, anyone, that they don’t represent orthodox Christianity. How can they turn from their sin if nobody checks them on it?

Interestingly enough, thanks to the gross immorality we see from the ECUSA and others, we as Catholics are more united with mainstream Protestantism than ever before as we both stand for righteousness, or at least we should be.

Agreed, we need to work with these various communities on various social and moral issues, but that does not mean that we have to bend on dogma. An example would be abortion. Many of the various Reformation communities will not be ANY help. Some of them even pay for the abortions of their community employees.

How could a thing like this happen? I think it happens because since the Reformation, people can pick and choose where they will worship. If they happen to want to have an abortion, they will tend to gravitate to someplace where that is acceptable. Again, it is the individual who decides what they are willing to be taught, and this applies as much to morals as it does to doctrine.

Harvard Professor (another one) Steven Ozment puts it this way:

“What of the original Protestant movement may be said to have survived into the modern world and to be commonly shared by Protestants today? Where does one today find the heritage of the Reformation? ** Protestants of all persuasions have over the centuries come to share a spiritual ‘fix it’, ‘get it right’, ‘make it true’ mentality. This is particularly the case in the moral management of their lives where they have demonstrated little patience with church authority and traditional practice whenever these have been proven to be impediments. …**.When it comes to making their spiritual and moral lives whole, they have not hesitated to sacrifice institutions to conscience, unity to efficiency, and obedience to results……**In the quest for a religious life that works, they unhesitatingly change churches and denominations, shedding the spiritual truths of yesterday as if they were just another bad investment or love affair. No other modern religious communion is marked by such variety and mobility.” **Ozment, “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg xiii

Ozment hits the nail on the head and is apparently does not feel the need to sugar coat the truth. I like and admire him and his directness.

Speaking of abortion for the moment LA. Can you imagine what this country might be like if the only religious influence in the country was the Catholic Church? Personally I think that abortion would never have been legalized. What do you think?

God Bless You LA, Topper

 

[Abu]

Your #233 makes good sense, Topper17.

As far as excommunication goes, this is used against those who publicly write against the Church, but its application is uneven.

**Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL (EWTN) on 08-24-2010: **
Canon 751 states: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; …”
It doesn’t sound like you are describing an obstinate situation but perhaps a situation of a lack of understanding, catechesis, etc.

The goal of the Church’s law on excommunication is not to excommunicate as many people as possible but really to excommunicate as few people as possible. An excommunication is meant to bring a person to repentance for extreme situations only. For example, St. Thomas wouldn’t have been guilty of excommunication for doubting the fact of the resurrection (if canon law existed then).
Canon 751 states: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; …”
ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?
RecNum=597237&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2001&Author=&Keyword=Heresy&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=22

 

[Wannano]

Do they still exist anymore in original form? They have changed their bible, (used to rely on septuagint, now dont) edited the Talmud throughout the ages in order to dismiss Christianity, etc, etc. Not to mention all their fragmentation. They lack the consistent pedigree of the RCC, imo.

I definitely think protestants are Christians, many wonderful people who are producing more fruit than many Catholics are, tbh. And I see us being judged in accordance with our knowledge of the Truth and how we responded to it. Luke 12:48

But you’re right about me disagreeing on the Church. If it is not visible and authoritative then scriptures like Matthew 18:17 do not make much sense.

The Lord be with you.

I really have no idea about Judiasm. It was just a thought. I mean they, still exist. Probably a dumb question.

LA., I honestly have to wonder…is the CC of today still in its original form? Somehow I think there have been a lot of changes since New Testament times.