Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[ScottishColleen]

So they affirm the primacy of the Pope?

Do these ministers and elders claim infallibility? I’m assuming they do not–so why would any fallible human follow another fallible human regarding interpretation of Scripture, esp. when there’s a disagreement?

No, they don’t. Again, their view of church government and apostolic authority is different and they believe that the Catholic church moved away from the New Testament apostalic model. They do not believe that anyone is infallible (their understanding of infallibility being possibly different than the Catholic view)…led by the Spirit, but not infallible. Because of this is also why they would not follow the Pope; they do not consider him infallible…and there is argumentation amoungst themselves as to whether he is following the Spirit (again, not an accusation, simply stating a particular common view).

Someone on here said something about “do you say this because someone told you so” and yet, this is the same stand a Catholic takes…because the Church says so. I understand that you are in agreement with the Catholic church on this and agree simply because you trust them on it. But when a Protestant asks, they are asking WHY the Catholic church stands where it does on an issue Not just because it’s been declared…but why has it been declared.

 

[sambos671]

It’s not a major doctrine in that they do not believe that your Salvation or status as a Christian is dependent on it.

The Trinity is a major Christian doctrine as how we understand and view God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is VERY important. Whether you use the AV 1611, the Geneva 1599, the Orthodox Study Bible, or the ESV is not. The Gospel is still contained within.

I’ve spoken with a few of these and they believe that this version is the only inspired word of God and all others are a waste. Seem pretty specific. And they also believe that all Elect would by necessity believe this or you really aren’t elect. Hmmmm. I don’t know. Seems to tie into soteriology. Election which some baptist hold to and others do not. I don’t know it seems a pretty major view. Its not like most SB I’ve spoken with and one translations is as good as another just depends on your taste. Now Many IFB I know are also dispensationalist and many SB I know are covenant theology thats also a big dividing line especially for the dispys. Some even wonder at your salvation if you question their eschatology. These seem major to me. Just saying.

 

[sambos671]

They’re all of the “Baptist” Denomination.No. Pentecostalism is not a Denomination.They’re their own Denomination.A mega church could be Denominational or not. You’d have to find out. Independents are just that.

A “Denomination” is an official organization to which individual, local churches belong. Each of those organizations have their own higher echelon.

But every Protestant church should have a statement of faith. When one visits a Protestant church (Denominational or not) he should ask for a copy of it. If they have none, my advice is: visitor beware.

But the truth still stands, there are not thousands of Protestant Denominations all claiming their own way of salvation.

What is Pentacostalism then? A sect? They believe that evidence of salvation is speaking in tongues. If you’re not speaking in tongues you’re not saved. But not all pentecostals believe this. Some just believe is relates to their second baptism which only occures through holiness. The Jesus Only people are Modalist. See the list is begining to lengthen.

 

[ScottishColleen]

I’ve spoken with a few of these and they believe that this version is the only inspired word of God and all others are a waste. Seem pretty specific. And they also believe that all Elect would by necessity believe this or you really aren’t elect. Hmmmm. I don’t know. Seems to tie into soteriology. Election which some baptist hold to and others do not. I don’t know it seems a pretty major view. Its not like most SB I’ve spoken with and one translations is as good as another just depends on your taste. Now Many IFB I know are also dispensationalist and many SB I know are covenant theology thats also a big dividing line especially for the dispys. Some even wonder at your salvation if you question their eschatology. These seem major to me. Just saying.

The whole KJVO issue is due to ignorance and fearmongering…and sometimes preference. One of my former IFB ministers would whoop and hollar about KJV1611Only! and yet the man had a variety of versions (including the NIV) on his office shelf that he admitted to my husband he read to help prepare his sermons and gain understanding from I never said they don’t contradict themselves

 

[sambos671]

The whole KJVO issue is due to ignorance and fearmongering…and sometimes preference. One of my former IFB ministers would whoop and hollar about KJV1611Only! and yet the man had a variety of versions (including the NIV) on his office shelf that he admitted to my husband he read to help prepare his sermons and gain understanding from I never said they don’t contradict themselves

Thank goodness you’ve come to the Catholic church. Was it hard for you? It really is a different paradigm. OOOPs my bad your thing says reformed. Are you a 5 point calvinist?

 

[ScottishColleen]

I think the best way to describe it is this:

There are branches and then there are denominations within the branches. The denominations within a branch are the same, but little particulars vary, not doctrine. The comparison to the Catholic church would be the Catholic church is a branch, but within that you have the Latin Rite, various Eastern Rites, etc…but they are still Catholic. The difference is, there is not one group of leaders for all the denominations of a branch to fall under, like the Catholic church. But they still fall under that branch doctrinally.

 

[PRmerger]

They do not believe that anyone is infallible (their understanding of infallibility being possibly different than the Catholic view)…**led by the Spirit, **but not infallible.

2 comments on above:
-if they’re not infallible, then why should anyone believe their interpretation on Scripture?

-the “led by the Spirit” phrase is exactly what Catholics are puzzled by–how can each denomination claim to be “led by the Spirit”, yet teach contrary doctrines? Does the Spirit tell one pastor that to be saved one must speak in tongues, and that same Spirit tell another pastor that speaking in tongues is irrelevant? Do they not read the same Bible, these two “Spirit-led” pastors?

Someone on here said something about “do you say this because someone told you so” and yet, this is the same stand a Catholic takes…because the Church says so. I understand that you are in agreement with the Catholic church on this and agree simply because you trust them on it. But when a Protestant asks, they are asking WHY the Catholic church stands where it does on an issue

I think the existence of Catholic Answers is testament to the fact that the Church does provide the WHY. Else, what material would Karl Keating et al have to provide its “answers”?

And again, I refer you to Pope JPII’s magnficent “Fides et Ratio”, to St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Sienna…all great Catholic thinkers who provided a prodigious amount of writings about Christ’s teachings.

 

[ScottishColleen]

Thank goodness you’ve come to the Catholic church. Was it hard for you? It really is a different paradigm. OOOPs my bad your thing says reformed. Are you a 5 point calvinist?

Yes, I am

 

[sambos671]

Yes, I am

So then you prefer the Geneva bible? Also I guess being Scottish you’re following in John Knox’s footsteps? BTW I always wondered with John Calvin and his institutes how God is not ultimately responsible for evil in the world or for satan’s down fall.

 

[ScottishColleen]

So then you prefer the Geneva bible? Also I guess being Scottish you’re following in John Knox’s footsteps? BTW I always wondered with John Calvin and his institutes how God is not ultimately responsible for evil in the world or for satan’s down fall.

I’m part Scot…good old American mutt, including Native American.

To understand the last statement, you may have to look at Job. Somehow, it was all part of God’s Sovereign Plan to bring Glory to Himself. However, we are not to “blame” Him or claim He created evil. As the Catholics would say, “it’s a mystery”

 

[distracted]

In
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Son of the living God.” the Christ,17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It can clearly be seen that the intention was not to build upon Peter, but upon his faith

Jesus gave the KEYS to Peter…

not to Peter’s faith…

 

[distracted]

I think the first post was a bit ridiculous - “go to a catholic class before you start arguing about what you don’t know.”…

Well can I say some thing? I went to a roman catholic mass for the first time on Sunday ( I am a former Methodist member) and it was soooooo strange: I couldn’t understand anything…:whacky:

The priest would say something and every one would say some thing back in unison - I didn’t know what was being said!!!

It was a little odd and I felt really out of my depth… No one greeted me…
There was no one to talk to me after wards either… I was really dissapointed!

They were doing Holy Communion - (this is the worse part of my story) Because I went up to the priest to receive the unleavened bread but he said are you catholic? I answered no. He then told me to put my hand over my chest and I think he said some thing but I missed it all because a baby was screaming! Oh the shame of it…

Can some one please explain what went on?

i’m sorry you had a “bad” experience… but i know it wasn’t all bad because… it was a Mass… which is far more than “meets the eye”… The angels & saints in heaven participate at very Mass… :heaven:

I was raised Catholic yet had a similar experience… I went away from the Church when i was young & didn’t know what i was doing… wasn’t catechized… Like you, i didn’t understand the Church, to speak of…

so i was gone for yrs… Then i came back and like you, found things strange… all the ritual, etc… but i stuck with it and eventually began reading up on things, reading Catholic authors, reading Church history… etc… and i got catechized… That’s why one should go to RCIA (w/ an orthodox insturctor!!) to understand Catholicism… understand why this or that is done during Mass, etc… That’s the only place you can find reliable info… You won’t get reliable info from anyone who is anti-Catholic… (people can get pretty “rabid” about what they perceive to be “error”… or… .and/or… would like to convince themselves is error).

The hard part about being Catholic is PEOPLE… Ok, so i speak mostly just for myself… but trust me, not all those who call themselvesCatholic are really Catholic… Not even!!!

but then you probably already know that… the 54% thing…

anyway… if you ever join the Church (and i pray you do because there are amazing “things” there that you can’t get anywhere else)… just remember that you have to ignore a lot of “unkosher” stuff…
unChristian behavior…

I would like to know more about you… What religion you were raised in, why you wnet to a Catholic Church, etc… would help to understand where you are…

 

[Peter_J]

“…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.” 1st Vat. Council

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virture of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the apporval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.” 2nd Vat. Council

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Neither of them says “The Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals”.

So when I agreed, I agreed based on the content and context of what is said above. Now, you might be trying to play some little technical game here, but I answered your question based on what was declared and documented in both those RC councils.

No, I’m not playing a technical game, word game, or any other kind of game, and I hope you won’t either. I asked you a question (does the RCC teach that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals?) and your answer indicated a MAJOR misconception about Catholicism.

However, even when the Pope is not making dogmatic, and therefore “infallible,” pronouncements, RCs are still required to obey him without question (see CCC 892, 2037, 2050):“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him…” 2nd Vat. CouncilSo, now are you going to answer my question or are you going to renege on your promise?

Funny, I don’t remember making a promise; but anyhow, here’s your question:

Thank you for recognizing this. But let me ask you, with your doctrine of “infallibility,” how do you personally test for “cheap tricks” within your own religious community?

(I’ve actually already started to answer it, by correcting your false notion about what the RCC teaches on Papal Infallibility.) My answer is that the doctrine of Infallibility does help me to test for “cheap tricks” (at least not in any way I can think of). We Catholics test for “cheap tricks” the same way(s) that you Protestants do: common sense, logic, a sense of fairness and decency, etc. In that regard, we’re just like you. (Feel free to make the old Wizard-of-Oz-behind-the-curtain analogy, if it makes you feel better.)

 

[historyb]

You haven’t answered my post! How would you classify these?

Baptist

 

[ScottishColleen]

So then you prefer the Geneva bible? Also I guess being Scottish you’re following in John Knox’s footsteps? BTW I always wondered with John Calvin and his institutes how God is not ultimately responsible for evil in the world or for satan’s down fall.

I prefer the Geneva (1599, but would prefer the 1560) and ESV (Reformation Study Bible). I also have a KJV (Thompson’s Chain Reference). My husband enjoys these as well as the NASB and the Orthodox Study Bible.

 

[historyb]

Jesus gave the KEYS to Peter…

not to Peter’s faith…

Sorry it never says or implies that

 

[Worthy5]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Neither of them says “The Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals”.

No, I’m not playing a technical game, word game, or any other kind of game, and I hope you won’t either. I asked you a question (does the RCC teach that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals?) and your answer indicated a MAJOR misconception about Catholicism.

Funny, I don’t remember making a promise; but anyhow, here’s your question:

(I’ve actually already started to answer it, by correcting your false notion about what the RCC teaches on Papal Infallibility.) My answer is that the doctrine of Infallibility does help me to test for “cheap tricks” (at least not in any way I can think of). We Catholics test for “cheap tricks” the same way(s) that you Protestants do: common sense, logic, a sense of fairness and decency, etc. In that regard, we’re just like you. (Feel free to make the old Wizard-of-Oz-behind-the-curtain analogy, if it makes you feel better.)

Come on Moondweller how much is the doctrine of infallibility invoked by the Church. And please, stay away from the Oliver Stone mentality that institutions are full of conspiracy stuff and deception. The last thing I am worried about is a cheap trick from the Catholic Church on teachings of faith and morals.

 

[PRmerger]

historyb, could you please respond to a challenge I gave you several pages back?

You stated:

Originally Posted by **historyb **
Among them all there are core one from Scripture that all can agree to, the differences come in secondary doctrines. Just as you Catholics have a core but different secondary in Franciscan, Augustine, Benedictine.

And I responded:

What doctrines do they teach differently? Please be specific and make sure that it’s a doctrine that you’re proposing, historyb.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry it never says or implies that

Exactly. It says to Peter. Not his faith–something which you’ve added to Scripture. Isn’t there a Scripture verse that says something about not adding to Scripture?

 

[historyb]

Exactly. It says to Peter. Not his faith–something which you’ve added to Scripture. Isn’t there a Scripture verse that says something about not adding to Scripture?

You have, it does not now nor ever will say what the RCC made up