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

[Memaw]

Someone listed Headcoverings under the variables. My understanding is that not all Catholics agree with headcoverings. If that is doctrine that causes Protestants to be classified differently, then how is it not within the Catholic church as well (again, not attacking, merely asking…and plan on asking the local priest )

Headcovering is not a Doctrine, it is a discipline. Doctrines can’t, nor ever will ever change but disciplines can. Ask the priest to explain the difference to you. God Bless, Memaw

 

[distracted]

Sorry it never says or implies that

yes it does… says that Jesus gave the keys to Peter…

Peter is always the first mentioned when listing Apostles in the Bible…

in one place it said Peter and the disciples… making a distinction…

Why would Jesus have said “thou art Peter and on this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it?”

Why would he say “thou art Peter…”

if all he was thinking about was Peter’s faith…not Peter?

 

[historyb]

yes it does… says that Jesus gave the keys to Peter…

Peter is always the first mentioned when listing Apostles in the Bible…

in one place it said Peter and the disciples… making a distinction…

Why would Jesus have said “thou art Peter and on this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it?”

Why would he say “thou art Peter…”

if all he was thinking about was Peter’s faith…not Peter?

Your still ignoring the context and picking one verse apart. With that verse in context there is no way that Christ was talking about making Peter anything. To say what the RCC speculates is forcing the text into something that does not fit.

 

[Peter_J]

Come on Moondweller how much is the doctrine of infallibility invoked by the Church.

Must be in the hundreds of thousands. (Of course, that’s assuming you agree with Moondweller that the Church claims infallibility for every time the Pope speaks on faith and morals. )

 

[ScottishColleen]

Headcovering is not a Doctrine, it is a discipline. Doctrines can’t, nor ever will ever change but disciplines can. Ask the priest to explain the difference to you. God Bless, Memaw

It was in the list and that is why I used it as an example. This is what is meant by Protestants as “majors” and “minors”. Some things are Doctrine…other things are considered lesser than, or “minors”.

It is also listed in Scripture as an Ordinance…basically, not a Doctrine, not a Discipline, but rather a command

 

[moondweller]

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.

Yes Peter, you certainly are playing a pathetic little game. I answered you intelligently and correctly and still you unabashedly go on with your childish game.

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

You said you’d answer my question but first you wanted to “test” my knowledge about Catholicism. I passed your little test with flying colors. And by doing so I probably taught you something about Catholicism.

(I’ve actually already started to answer it, by correcting your false notion about what the RCC teaches on Papal Infallibility.)

You corrected me on nothing.

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.)

The simple truth is, Peter, “common sense, logic, a sense of fairness and decency, etc.” are useless when the “infallibility” card is played. You cannot rightfully question any doctrine which is (supposedly) “infallibly” stated. All you’re allowed to do is humbly accept it. It doesn’t take a wizard to understand this basic principle. It’s quite simple, indeed.

 

[Peter_J]

You corrected me on nothing.

Well then, I tried to correct your error.

There’s no reason to play games, it’s there in black and white for anyone to read. I asked you

True or false: according to Catholic teaching, the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals?

You answered, True, which proves that you are enormously mistaken about what the Catholic Church teaches. (As I said before, neither Vatican I nor Vatican II say that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals, as should be clear to anyone who has read the statements.)

On a side note, you might consider this: How do you think I would fare on a Protestant forum like “Rapture Ready” or “Bible Forums”, if I behaved the way you behaved in this thread – i.e. if I told blatant falsehoods about what Protestantism teaches, and then became hostile when someone tried to correct me? Do you think it’s likely such behavior would get me booted from the forum?

That’s just a question to think about. In any case, I’m not planning to post to you again after this, so goodbye.

 

[moondweller]

That’s just a question to think about. In any case, I’m not planning to post to you again after this, so goodbye.

That’s because your little game was discovered and now you don’t know what to do.

 

[sambos671]

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”

I think in the nature of Origen who wanted to protect certain consepts of God such as his divine mercy overstated his position falling into error of Universalism. Origen however admitted what he was doing was speculative. I think Calvin likewise wanting to ensure the consept of the soveriegnty of God likewise falls into error ultimately linking God with the creation of evil. Though he says he doesn’t, theoretically, he does. If you follow his line of thought to its ultimate conclusion God created evil and therefore is responsible in someway for it. Even if he uses it to glorify himself its still an evil. Now Calvin may view a mystery with regard to God’s soveriegnty and the question of evil but in reality its where his theological model falls apart. I’m not sure I would start out with total depravity either. There is an aspect to this consept that falls apart and the final conclusion in the matter is to limit and more likely to overlook the truth that man even in his sin has redeeming qualities. Man looses any sense of value outside of election though being created in the very image of God despite sin has its own immessurable value. But I’m derailing here. Sorry.

 

[sambos671]

Baptist

But soteriologically they are at opposit ends of the spectrum! One says salvation can only be effected in one manner. The other one has a different manner.

 

[sambos671]

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?

That quote from Revelations is specific to the book of Revelations that Evangelicals often apply to their bible. The verse is in context of the Apocalyptic liturature that we also see reflected in other Apocaylyptic literature. Its a common warning in this type of literature.

Rev 22:18

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

The context is the book of Revelations not the 66 books of the protestant bible.

 

[Memaw]

Must be in the hundreds of thousands. (Of course, that’s assuming you agree with Moondweller that the Church claims infallibility for every time the Pope speaks on faith and morals. )

The Pope is infallible 1.whenever he teaches on faith and morals, (the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church), and 2. when he speaks Ex Cathedra, (from the chair of Peter, defining a Dogma) and 3, in the Councils of the Catholic Church and 4. when he Canonizes a Saint. You need to study up on what the Catholic Church means when she says the Pope is infallible. Its really the Holy Spirit, protecting the teachings of the Catholic Church as Jesus said HIS Church would NEVER teach error. If you have a problem with that, you really need to take it up with the Holy Spirit. I suggest you pray about it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PRmerger]

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

You would not know about the Gospel were it not for the authority of the RCC, since it was she who canonized the Scripture and preserved it and guarded it.

 

[Peter_J]

Must be in the hundreds of thousands. (Of course, that’s assuming you agree with Moondweller that the Church claims infallibility for every time the Pope speaks on faith and morals. )

emphasis added

 

[Peter_J]

Memaw wrote:

The Pope is infallible 1.whenever he teaches on faith and morals, (the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church), and 2. when he speaks Ex Cathedra, (from the chair of Peter, defining a Dogma) and 3, in the Councils of the Catholic Church and 4. when he Canonizes a Saint. You need to study up on what the Catholic Church means when she says the Pope is infallible. Its really the Holy Spirit, protecting the teachings of the Catholic Church as Jesus said HIS Church would NEVER teach error. If you have a problem with that, you really need to take it up with the Holy Spirit. I suggest you pray about it. God Bless, Memaw

Thoughts, anyone (Catholics, in particular)?

 

[SHW]

I agree with Memaw.

Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth. This means that the Holy Spirit prevents His Church from teaching errors regarding faith and morals.

John 16:13 “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”

Jesus promised that He would be with His Church always until He returns at His Second Coming and that the gates of Hades would never prevail against His Church.

Matthew 28:20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, **I am with you (Church) **always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you (Church) hears Me, he who rejects you (Church) rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Matthew 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (you) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

If His Church ever teaches error, then Hades has prevailed and that would make Jesus a liar. **
**
Jesus cannot lie. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, so His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church built upon Peter cannot ever err in teaching faith and morals.

Individual members of His Church’s Hierarchy “can” and “do” sin personal sins. This causes scandal to the Church and they must repent and confess their sins before death or they will not inherit eternal life. They are actually judged more severely than lay members of the Church.

James 3:1 “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.”

For a short Scripture Study called Jesus Builds His Church, please see:

members.cox.net/studyhisword/JesusBuildsHisChurch.pdf

 

[script77]

As a protestant (although my church steadfastly disagrees that we are “protesting” anything) I unfortunately have to agree with you. The lack of original thought or scholarship among Protestants is appalling. We say that Catholics are hide-bound by tradition but let me tell you, hearing vitually the same 5 songs, 3 specials and then sermon for years on end is really starting to get on my nerves. The only thing that changes is the flower arrangement on the alter.
I recently started doing some serious Bible study and research into church history (Catholic and Protestant) and I am learning a lot of very discouraging and disappointing things.

Things like what?

 

[historyb]

You would not know about the Gospel were it not for the authority of the RCC, since it was she who canonized the Scripture and preserved it and guarded it.

That is false. The books were agreed on way before a council and back than the Church wasn’t like now. Even if the council never lifted a finger the Bible would still exist God would make sure

 

[PRmerger]

That is false. The books were agreed on way before a council and back than the Church wasn’t like now. Even if the council never lifted a finger the Bible would still exist God would make sure

Yes, the RCC agreed upon which books belonged in the Bible. It was through these bishops–Catholic men-- that God made sure His Word would be revealed.

Every single time you quote Scripture, historyb, you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the RCC.

And, still waiting for you to make good on your claim that Franciscans, Benedictines, etc teach different doctrines. Please show all of us what doctrines they teach differently. Does one deny the Trinity? One deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist? What are these doctrines?

I quote you verbatim:
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.

 

[historyb]

Yes, the RCC agreed upon which books belonged in the Bible. It was through these bishops–Catholic men-- that God made sure His Word would be revealed.

Every single time you quote Scripture, historyb, you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the RCC.

And, still waiting for you to make good on your claim that Franciscans, Benedictines, etc teach different doctrines. Please show all of us what doctrines they teach differently. Does one deny the Trinity? One deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist? What are these doctrines?

I quote you verbatim:

Wrong and you’ll keep waiting forever.