Protestants and the Bible?

[Reuben_J]

Hot news flash:
Western Europe, the US, and British Empire countries are moving away from Christianity.
We know that.
It’s a long term trend for at least 3 centuries. It has intensified in the last 50 years.
True, many Catholics, outside African and Asia, are moving away from the Magisterium, the Bible, and Tradition, because they are influenced by an increasingly powerful secular media culture. It is also true many Protestants are (implicitly) moving away from the Magisterium, and explicitly away from Scripture and Tradition.
None of this disproves the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, Scripture, or Tradition.
There were people who walked away from Christ during his teaching. That did not refute His teaching.
The Magisterium is reliable, regardless of whether 99% of Catholics follow it, or 1%. Same is true for Scripture and Tradition. Their reliability does not depend on how many rely on it. In 2014, perhaps more Americans relied on the Kardashians for guidance, than on the Gospel of Mathew.

And this.

 

[rcwitness]

Catholics can no longer blame Gallup, or Pew,
the blame is on the Bishops, and priests.
“The response showing the nearly universal rejection of Catholic moral teaching by Mass-going Catholics, including some priests, bishops and even cardinals, are surprising to no one with the least acquaintance with contemporary Catholicism.”

This is not necessarily true!

Many of these Catholic dissenters KNOW EXACTLY what the Church Teaches, and because they learned it from the Church. They just simply disagree. I spent time in Brasil and the priests that I met do preach about issues which the people just don’t care about.

I debated about birth control and sterilization with some Catholics. Finally, I had to ask if we should ask what the priest has to say about it… they did not want to hear, because they knew. I showed them the Teachings. The answer I got was that an ex-priest they know agrees with them!

Yet one even has a “devotion” to Padre Pio, and was scheduled for a sterilization procedure. I brought Padre Pio’s last letter written to Pope Paul VI to her. Padre Pio praises the Pope for his encyclical Humane Vitae. It was ignored!

 

[GKC]

I think that’s a myth.

And the beat goes on…

 

[rcwitness]

I think that’s a myth.

And the beat goes on…

I also agree… and think it’s rather impossible to know just how many denominations exist.

 

[alwayswill]

…
You seem to be attempting to use what some Catholic members are accepting, despite the Church Teachings, to represent the spiritual state of the Catholic faith.
…

in post 142
JB stated “you can deny certain elements of doctrine and still be a** good** Lutheran”

in post 143
I presented a poll showing 83% of Catholics fell they can reject certain doctrine and still be a** good** Catholic

in post 151
you seem to be questioning the value and believability of polls.

in post 152
I presented a Vatican initiated poll that show widespread rejection of Catholic doctrines by Catholic…

**
What I am actually attempting to do**
is that when a Catholic make a blanket statement like
“you can deny certain elements of doctrine and still be a** good** Lutheran”
I present an example of a poll showing a similar situation existing in Catholicism.

 

[rcwitness]

in post 142
JB stated “you can deny certain elements of doctrine and still be a** good** Lutheran”

in post 143
I presented a poll showing 83% of Catholics fell they can reject certain doctrine and still be a** good** Catholic

But the Church does not consider it good to reject her doctrine. JonNC distinguished a particular matter of the PV of Mary. He said the PV of Mary is adiaphoron. That means a Lutheran can disbelieve that Mary kept her virginity and still be in good standing with Lutheran faith. On the other hand, if a Catholic rejects the PV of Mary, he/she would NOT be considered in good standing with the Catholic faith. It does not matter what that individual feels about theselves.

in post 151
you seem to be questioning the value and believability of polls.

Yes, I don’t believe polls are infallible. Some are more accurate than others. But one poll, in particular, that you used seemed manipulative.

in post 152
I presented a Vatican initiated poll that show widespread rejection of Catholic doctrines by Catholic…

and the issues of that poll had to do with Teachings on sex and marriage. Quite different than the one which concluded that many Catholics (including clergy) do not believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus.

**
What I am actually attempting to do**
is that when a Catholic make a blanket statement like
“you can deny certain elements of doctrine and still be a** good** Lutheran”
I present an example of a poll showing a similar situation existing in Catholicism.

Again, the Catholic Church does NOT profess that one can reject her doctrines and be in good standing with the Catholic faith.

When you first showed some polls in the thread about the Protestant who did not believe hell was real, I thought you had a good point. Since the poll showed even more Catholics not believing hell is a reality. But those Catholics are certainly not in good standing with the Church. And neither is it necessarily (in all cases) the fault of Deacons, Priests or Bishops.

However, I’m not against polls used as surveys to determine what issues need to be addressed better, and if need be, stronger methods be taken with individuals rejecting doctrine while being active members of the community and receiving Communion.

 

[Wannano]

But the Church does not consider it good to reject her doctrine. JonNC distinguished a particular matter of the PV of Mary. He said the PV of Mary is adiaphoron. That means a Lutheran can disbelieve that Mary kept her virginity and still be in good standing with Lutheran faith. On the other hand, if a Catholic rejects the PV of Mary, he/she would NOT be considered in good standing with the Catholic faith. It does not matter what that individual feels about theselves.

Yes, I don’t believe polls are infallible. Some are more accurate than others. But one poll, in particular, that you used seemed manipulative.

and the issues of that poll had to do with Teachings on sex and marriage. Quite different than the one which concluded that many Catholics (including clergy) do not believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus.

Again, the Catholic Church does NOT profess that one can reject her doctrines and be in good standing with the Catholic faith.

When you first showed some polls in the thread about the Protestant who did not believe hell was real, I thought you had a good point. Since the poll showed even more Catholics not believing hell is a reality. But those Catholics are certainly not in good standing with the Church. And neither is it necessarily (in all cases) the fault of Deacons, Priests or Bishops.

However, I’m not against polls used as surveys to determine what issues need to be addressed better, and if need be, stronger methods be taken with individuals rejecting doctrine while being active members of the community and receiving Communion.

Good morning RC, maybe you will clarify something for me. I have researched it some but find it hard to determine an answer. Does the Roman Catholic Church determine that it is a mortal sin to be in defiance of the authority of the Church? Same for rejecting doctrine as per your last paragraph?

 

[rcwitness]

Good morning RC, maybe you will clarify something for me. I have researched it some but find it hard to determine an answer. Does the Roman Catholic Church determine that it is a mortal sin to be in defiance of the authority of the Church? Same for rejecting doctrine as per your last paragraph?

I don’t think the answer to this question is so simple and “across the board”.

There are various levels of doctrines and acceptance/rejection of them.

Denying the Virgin birth of Jesus should not be considered on par with a Catholic couple using condoms to avoid the burden of another pregnancy, for example.

 

[Wannano]

I don’t think the answer to this question is so simple and “across the board”.

There are various levels of doctrines and acceptance/rejection of them.

Denying the Virgin birth of Jesus should not be considered on par with a Catholic couple using condoms to avoid the burden of another pregnancy, for example.

I think I get it, thanks.

 

[rcwitness]

Does the Roman Catholic Church determine that it is a mortal sin to be in defiance of the authority of the Church?

For a Catholic to defy the authority of the Church is definitely treading in dangerous territory. The specific level of that defiance and the related matter over it is relative.

 

[JonNC]

ELCA doctrine? There didn’t use to be any such thing as ELCA doctrine, (or LCMS doctrine, etc). There was just Lutheran doctrine.

I’ve known LOTS of Catholics who were not in communion with the (singular) Magisterium’s doctrine. Those people might make my life miserable, but I could always figure out what was the Magisterium’s doctrine. I may or may not choose to follow it, but I could always identify it - singular pronoun.

Could you say that also with PNCC and Old Catholics? IOW, the analogy is the same. If Catholic bishops take on a differing view of a doctrine, it is the same as a Lutheran group doing the same.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yep, doctrine that is not binding.

Do you believe the Blessed Virgin was assumed prior to her death, or after? Regardless of which one you believe, is the other view a “doctrine that is not binding”?

Jon

 

[steido01]

It doesn’t matter how they viewed it before Trent. Some Catholics before Trent may have thought the epistles of Paul were not inspired.

It doesn’t matter to you how these books were viewed before Trent because you live after Trent. But what of those who lived before your communion determined that the exact table of contents is a matter of doctrine?

Who cares what some Catholics outside the Magisterium think?

You can’t pull that card with this topic. Plenty of learned, ordained Catholics – even Cardinals and some theologians commissioned personally by Popes to research this and other topics – agreed with Luther on the canon.

Thousands of Catholics think abortion is great. No one would ever say that the teaching of the Church is not clear on abortion.

You’re comparing apples to doorknobs. Abortion has always, clearly been an abomination. The Church never had to rationalize a change of beliefs (or, in this case, a narrowing of acceptable Christian freedom) via a “development of doctrine” by a vote of fallible bishops in northern Italy.

In a similar way, the teaching of the Church had already been clear on what books were considered inspired, long before Trent. The fact of the matter is, the council of Florence listed the 73 books as canonical and inspired, and attached an anathema to it. That council was accepted and binding on the West, which your thousands of Catholics were a part of. The council of Trent merely closed the canon. Any Catholic who did not believe at the time that they were inspired, most likely knew that the Church had decreed them as inspired. Your thousands of Catholics knew their way of thinking was heterodox.

Local councils hardly speak for the entirety of Christendom. Yet even Florence, which went so far as to list the books they agreed should be counted as Scripture, did not speak against a hermeneutic that gave deference to the Gospels. In fact, it could be read in favor of the ‘hierarchy’ that Lutheranism adheres to. Read carefully from the Council:

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.

Ok, so far so good. Everyone agrees that Scripture is Scripture and that includes: the law and the prophets because Jesus quoted them as Scripture, and the Gospels because they are about Jesus. Note how the Council did not specifically name the epistles in this “big picture” paragraph, when it easily could have. Of course, it goes on to list the books in the next paragraph, but why not note them in the “big picture” paragraph? Could it be that other books were considered Scripture, but given that some were agreed upon and others were not, that some books served different purposes and were therefore not easily classified? These were not stupid men, after all, so this couldn’t be a mere oversight. Is that what led Cardinal Cajetan - a fine scholar of the Magisterium, if ever there was one - to say the following about another local Council?

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Also note that Florence did not anathematize those who held to a different canon - an odd thing, considering what it did with the other points of doctrine it defined. It very easily could have, since it banhammered even lesser things like festivals and the like:

[In] some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies, others organize dances for men and women, attracting people to amusement and buffoonery. Others prepare meals and banquets there. This holy synod detests these abuses. It forbids ordinaries as well as deans and rectors of churches, under pain of being deprived of all ecclesiastical revenues for three months, to allow these and similar frivolities, or even markets and fairs, in churches, which ought to be houses of prayer, or even in cemeteries. They are to punish transgressors by ecclesiastical censures and other remedies of the law. The holy synod decrees that all customs, statutes and privileges which do not accord with these decrees, unless they add greater penalties, are null.

Good thing we don’t see that happening in Catholic churches today, or we’d have to wonder whether today’s Catholics really follow their councils.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Do you believe the Blessed Virgin was assumed prior to her death, or after? Regardless of which one you believe, is the other view a “doctrine that is not binding”?

Jon

Do you believe either of those two doctrines?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You can’t pull that card with this topic. Plenty of learned, ordained Catholics – even Cardinals and some theologians commissioned personally by Popes to research this and other topics – agreed with Luther on the canon.

Those learned theologians stayed in the Church. Luther did not.

 

[JonNC]

Do you believe either of those two doctrines?

Yes. I believe the Blessed Mother is with her Son, though how this happened is not explained. So, either explanation is reasonable.

Yes, I believe in the PV.

Now, answer my question, please.

 

[steido01]

Those learned theologians stayed in the Church. Luther did not.

Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing out that double-standard. Why is it that the Catholic Church holds Cajetan and Erasmus in such high esteem, while -]that same Catholic Church /-] some Catholics simultaneously beat up on Luther – despite the fact that these men held similar views on the topic? I could understand it if we were talking about all the other issues where we disagree, but to use that as justification in regard to this particular topic seems rather duplicitous.

It makes me wonder if Trent just over-reacted about the canon stuff because simply because that obnoxious ‘Luther’ spoke about it.

Yes. I believe the Blessed Mother is with her Son, though how this happened is not explained. So, either explanation is reasonable.

Yes, I believe in the PV

Solid, orthodox answers. Confessional Lutherans and Continuing Anglicans are proud. It’s heartening to see that you’ve kept your faith despite your situation. Lesser men would struggle. Your cross continues to be a blessing to others. Thank you, friend.

Now, answer my question, please.

I’ve got high hopes for a response.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Yes. I believe the Blessed Mother is with her Son, though how this happened is not explained. So, either explanation is reasonable.

Yes, I believe in the PV.

Now, answer my question, please.

Well guess I won’t answer yours since you didn’t answer mine.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing out that double-standard. Why is it that the Catholic Church holds Cajetan and Erasmus in such high esteem, while -]that same Catholic Church /-] some Catholics simultaneously beat up on Luther – despite the fact that these men held similar views on the topic? I could understand it if we were talking about all the other issues where we disagree, but to use that as justification in regard to this particular topic seems rather duplicitous.

I

Ah yes. Those two guys actually stayed and submitted to the authority of the Church. Luther did not. The fact remains. However, you can talk about the apparent “double standard” Catholics hold Luther and the other reformers to and answer the question I just posed to him.

 

[benhur]

Well guess I won’t answer yours since you didn’t answer mine.