Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[JonNC]

It’s more than just Purgatory. The point before and after
Trent priests are not free to alter a. Sacred Doctrine
by B. rearranging the Bible to support their doctrinal
alterations. Which is EXACTLY what Luther did and
exactly what thousands of Protestant groups have done
ever since. It’s too too much like- hello Watergate. Shred
the evidence and no one will know, right?

Even after reading most of the DCs, I’m still trying to find the doctrinal controversies that Luther had and are often spoken of.

Judith, Tobit, Eclessiasticus, 1 Macc, Wisdom, Baruch. Even 2 Macc and the Purgatory thing just doesn’t impact these other books. The idea that Luther “excluded” the DCs because of doctrine just wash. If one wants to say that about 2 Macc, that can be discussed, but certainly there’s nothing in the others, and since the CC splits the Septuagint, one can’t really claim that he had to “exclude” them all.
And none of this explains why, if he disliked them so much, he included them.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Even after reading most of the DCs, I’m still trying to find the doctrinal controversies that Luther had and are often spoken of.

Judith, Tobit, Eclessiasticus, 1 Macc, Wisdom, Baruch. Even 2 Macc and the Purgatory thing just doesn’t impact these other books. The idea that Luther “excluded” the DCs because of doctrine just wash. If one wants to say that about 2 Macc, that can be discussed, but certainly there’s nothing in the others, and since the CC splits the Septuagint, one can’t really claim that he had to “exclude” them all.
And none of this explains why, if he disliked them so much, he included them.

Jon

Wisdom- considered in doctrines of archetype of Mary the Mother of God.
Excerpts from Wisdom quoted in Matthew, Romans and Hebrews.

1 Maccabees- Jesus observes Hannukah.

2 Maccabees Purgatory doctrine and How God Punishes Nations

2 Maccabees 15- the intercession of the saints- doctrine

Tobit- Archangel Raphael

Judith- Biblical Mary- doctrinal.

Now this is a list of just a FEW areas of Catholic
doctrine referenced in the disputed books.
Do they have anything in common?
Luther disputed the doctrines AND the books.
Gee.

Now that might not mean much to you guys but the intercession
of the saints, purgatory, Mary, Angels, and the adherence
to Judaism of Jesus is very important to us.
The latter point though is not surprising since
Luther would have liked the knowledge of Jesus
BEING a Jew to be downplayed anyway.

One wonders how Luther could reject these seven books
and retain ANY of the New Testament. Obviously
the NT writers thought the seven were inspired.
Here is the list of the references to JUST the 7 books
in the NT:
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[Sochi]

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Matt 16:18

15 ‘If you love me, you will keep[f] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[g] to be with you for ever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in[h] you…25 ‘I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate,* the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. 27

John 14

Did Jesus not mean what he said??*I’m sure He very much meant whatever it was that He might have said. But you are assuming that He said that, that way, with the intent you put on it. I came up in the Catholic school system, Jon S. I’m pretty aware of all that. It is primarily using internal self verifications. That might or might not be an accurate record, unblemished by time, opinion, piety, repetition, copying, or a hundred other things. My take is that whatever He said, we really don’t know in context what he meant. And primarily, we don’t know ourselves and our inner workings. Let’s look at that first, and then maybe apply what we learn to a religion or a philosophy. And again, if you believe the accuracy of the bible, back to Mar 4: 33,34. That tells me that a lot is missing, But I guess that is OK with you.?

 

[Sochi]

Well ok can’t trust anything past 3 AD?
Go back to the 1AD haha.
There is the Didache
churchyear.net/lentfatherscomplete.pdf

There is Josephus

There is the Torah and Talmud.

Start at 1.

Love your gloating confidence. Must feel good. Thanks for sharing the Didache. Very nice. Is there some reason it isn’t part of the NT?

Josephus? Really? Will you cite Eusebius next?

Not sure why you are including the Torah and Talmud. Relevance?

I pretty much meant what I said, and you might examine it much more closely for immediate relevance, as distinct from our Church and family sponsored inculcations. No, really. So few think about what they think about. You know what I mean?

 

[marywarfield]

Love your gloating confidence. Must feel good. Thanks for sharing the Didache. Very nice. Is there some reason it isn’t part of the NT?

Josephus? Really? Will you cite Eusebius next?

Not sure why you are including the Torah and Talmud. Relevance?

I pretty much meant what I said, and you might examine it much more closely for immediate relevance, as distinct from our Church and family sponsored inculcations. No, really. So few think about what they think about. You know what I mean?

Frankly no, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Torah and Talmud? You claim the Church is corrupted
3 Sd onward. In that case start pre 3 Ad and pre Church.

 

[Sochi]

Frankly no, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I guess that proves my point.

The Torah and Talmud? You claim the Church is corrupted
3 Sd onward. In that case start pre 3 Ad and pre Church.

Talmud & Torah, no workee. Sorry. Wrong ball park.

 

[marywarfield]

I guess that proves my point.

Talmud & Torah, no workee. Sorry. Wrong ball park.

No one knows anything, no one can know any thing
it’s all a big distortion no workee for me. Sorry.
Wrong thread as your view is too elitist for us.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m sure He very much meant whatever it was that He might have said. But you are assuming that He said that, that way, with the intent you put on it. I came up in the Catholic school system, Jon S. I’m pretty aware of all that. It is primarily using internal self verifications. That might or might not be an accurate record, unblemished by time, opinion, piety, repetition, copying, or a hundred other things. My take is that whatever He said, we really don’t know in context what he meant. And primarily, we don’t know ourselves and our inner workings. Let’s look at that first, and then maybe apply what we learn to a religion or a philosophy. And again, if you believe the accuracy of the bible, back to Mar 4: 33,34. That tells me that a lot is missing, But I guess that is OK with you.?

Your argumentation is like saying we cannot know today about Gahndi and the context of his words because we weren’t there.

Or perhaps for a more ancient source, we cannot know about Nero or his motivations because we weren’t there.

You are choosing to hold the Christian history too an unobtainable standard that you don’t hold for other areas.

Thas your choice, but you are right about your learning in high school…this is a very adolescent way of thinking.

 

[benhur]

I’m not denying that people held unorthodox opinions and invented man made ideas before

OK. Excited, zealous yet erroneous minds sometimes do say they all started in 1517.

But I deny their authority to declare it true as I declare there is no authority for Protestant rejection of the Church.

OK. Yet they said Jesus had no authority to do what He did in helping, healing, teaching people and He caused division . The proof is in the pudding for who has authority, or at least for who is using it wisely.

So, I guess in order for me to believe Protestants have it all right I would need to see early bishops and church fathers expounding their doctrines.

Have you read all the earliest of Fathers ? Thru the second century ?

But I don’t, I see them celebrating mass, denouncing schism from bishops and talking of the real presence and sacraments.

Bishops and schism is in the bile so we have no contention there. Mass and the rest are shown only to have evolved or developed. Many of the earliest writings are quite universal to most denominations today, yet beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The same people doing that are the same people who compiled the scriptures that Protestants use. So they believe the church can be divinely inspired to get the New Testament right, but the Old Testament wrong in the same meeting, and they were wrong in celebrating mass and being authoritative bishops, but the New Testament they got right???

Yeah, enough to keep anybody humble. A bit like St. Peter being right on and saying Jesus is the Messiah and a minute later foot in mouth with Jesus saying to Peter get behind me Satan. Scary . Yeah, get the NT right yet be fallible on a thing or two ? Quite possible. Hold on tight to what you have lest ye even lose that. This humbling and warning/lesson is for every saint and for every denomination. We do need each other.

It’s beyond odd. And dronald saying that every Christian must determine the canon individually based on modern research is bizarre, and if he was honest he would reject Hebrews and Mark since there is no evidence of who wrote them.

It is not beyond any individual to seek the Truth in Christ on any matter. That does not rule out looking at everything in our tradition/history the Lord has given us for the Lord discerneth all things, and we are to have the mind of Christ, and can know all things as John tells us in epistle. As you said earlier it would be odd not to question or test what was handed to us as children.

It is as if, the Mormon church was the early church and compiled the Bible in one of their annual conferences alongside declarations of men becoming gods and polygamy, Protestants would say, thanks for the book but we reject the rest.

Understand, especially if you believe the church is infallible always. I think as time goes on and things evolve for the Mormons they are having similar problems. A thousand years is a long time, even two thousand years. That would be like the future Mormon leadership saying how can we be not right on today because 1700 years ago we gave you the book that we all still love ?

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11932275]Wisdom- considered in doctrines of archetype of Mary the Mother of God.
Excerpts from Wisdom quoted in Matthew, Romans and Hebrews.

1 Maccabees- Jesus observes Hannukah.

2 Maccabees Purgatory doctrine and How God Punishes Nations

2 Maccabees 15- the intercession of the saints- doctrine

Tobit- Archangel Raphael

Judith- Biblical Mary- doctrinal.

Now this is a list of just a FEW areas of Catholic
doctrine referenced in the disputed books.
Do they have anything in common?
Luther disputed the doctrines AND the books.
Gee.

Again, Mary, the only issue I see here is Purgatory, and even that is far more nuanced than most seem to realize.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

Lutherans do not deny the intercession of saints, only the requirement of invocation.
Lutherans holds as doctrine the Theotokos.
Lutherans recognize angels.
Jesus was a Jew, clearly. He wrote a book regarding this truth, “Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew”

Now that might not mean much to you guys but the intercession
of the saints, purgatory, Mary, Angels, and the adherence
to Judaism of Jesus is very important to us.
The latter point though is not surprising since
Luther would have liked the knowledge of Jesus
BEING a Jew to be downplayed anyway.

When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9. God has also demonstrated this by his acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has he granted so high an honor as he has to the Jews. - Luther

Jon

 

[Sochi]

No one knows anything, no one can know any thing

Well, of course that is simplistic and silly, yes?

it’s all a big distortion no workee for me. Sorry.
Wrong thread as your view is too elitist for us.

It’s not all distortion, but our sense of self and the world is a distortion, by any measurable means. After all, you yourself quote Abbé d’Herouville:

“Your state is not of itself a barrier to holiness.
For it is not the place nor the occupation that sanctifies
a man; it is the man who must sanctify the place
and the occupation.”

But is it possible you only think you know what your state is??? Are yo so busy thinking you don’t see what thinking itself is? Who’s thinking? If you don’t know that, or only have a glib answer, any accusation of elitism is groundless. So what is holiness? some airy-fairy concept you think you know about? I don’t think there is anything airy-fairy about it at all.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain on the topic of the OP please

 

[Sochi]

Your argumentation is like saying we cannot know today about Gahndi [sic]and the context of his words because we weren’t there.

Or perhaps for a more ancient source, we cannot know about Nero or his motivations because we weren’t there.

You are choosing to hold the Christian history too an unobtainable standard that you don’t hold for other areas.

Thas [sic] your choice, but you are right about your learning in high school…this is a very adolescent way of thinking.

Actually, on examination, it is not that at all. We know about Gandhi to a large extent as we have film of him, documents, and witnesses not so many generations removed. He was a major media event, yes? Nero was not as well documented as Gandhi, but again, quite a bit on him. But we also have a lot of folk impressions of him that are not accurate, because people like to make things up, yes?

What we have of the “Gospels” is imperfect and not quite matching copies of copies of copies of what might have been an original document conjured into a collection exclusive of other works pronounced to be standard and to be taken as authentic and inspired. That may to some extent be true. But the complete story, if you read it, with nearly the same critical distance you might apply to Gandhi or Nero, or even Hammurabi or Ramses II, well, not so much there, and very likely alterations (pious, of course) and way ripe ground for every sort of misinterpretation, if you have some idea of Eastern religions and philosophy, yes?

So what I’m doing is in fact holding christianism to exactly the same rigors I would any other event. That is precisely the reason I feel abut it the way I do as a result of about 40 years of study of it and having been one as well. I’m not tossing what I say into the ring without very due consideration. What are you doing?

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK. Excited, zealous yet erroneous minds sometimes do say they all started in 1517.

OK. Yet they said Jesus had no authority to do what He did in helping, healing, teaching people and He caused division . The proof is in the pudding for who has authority, or at least for who is using it wisely.

Have you read all the earliest of Fathers ? Thru the second century ? Bishops and schism is in the bile so we have no contention there. Mass and the rest are shown only to have evolved or developed. Many of the earliest writings are quite universal to most denominations today, yet beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yeah, enough to keep anybody humble. A bit like St. Peter being right on and saying Jesus is the Messiah and a minute later foot in mouth with Jesus saying to Peter get behind me Satan. Scary . Yeah, get the NT right yet be fallible on a thing or two ? Quite possible. Hold on tight to what you have lest ye even lose that. This humbling and warning/lesson is for every saint and for every denomination. We do need each other.
It is not beyond any individual to seek the Truth in Christ on any matter. That does not rule out looking at everything in our tradition/history the Lord has given us for the Lord discerneth all things, and we are to have the mind of Christ, and can know all things as John tells us in epistle. As you said earlier it would be odd not to question or test what was handed to us as children.
Understand, especially if you believe the church is infallible always. I think as time goes on and things evolve for the Mormons they are having similar problems. A thousand years is a long time, even two thousand years. That would be like the future Mormon leadership saying how can we be not right on today because 1700 years ago we gave you the book that we all still love ?

I appreciate this post and it’s ecumenical tone!

I agree that the proof is in the pudding. I will never deny Protestants do good works or evangelize. They do. I do take offense when they infer that the Catholic Church does not (not you but others). The Catholic Church is not just growing and expanding but does tremendous good in the world! I would argue that the duplication of effort by so many Protestant churches working autonomously is actually a hindrance.

The proof is in the pudding. Mainline Protestantism is in crisis and in America the studies show Protestantism decreasing and those falling off becoming secular. Ouch. The Catholic Church in America is maintaining.

I have red the early church fathers. Most of them through the second century. It is beyond clear to me that they celebrated mass! I found this as a Protestant not looking at them to convert but to defend a Protestant doctrinal position.

That started me on a long road!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually, on examination, it is not that at all. We know about Gandhi to a large extent as we have film of him, documents, and witnesses not so many generations removed. He was a major media event, yes? Nero was not as well documented as Gandhi, but again, quite a bit on him. But we also have a lot of folk impressions of him that are not accurate, because people like to make things up, yes?

What we have of the “Gospels” is imperfect and not quite matching copies of copies of copies of what might have been an original document conjured into a collection exclusive of other works pronounced to be standard and to be taken as authentic and inspired. That may to some extent be true. But the complete story, if you read it, with nearly the same critical distance you might apply to Gandhi or Nero, or even Hammurabi or Ramses II, well, not so much there, and very likely alterations (pious, of course) and way ripe ground for every sort of misinterpretation, if you have some idea of Eastern religions and philosophy, yes?

So what I’m doing is in fact holding christianism to exactly the same rigors I would any other event. That is precisely the reason I feel abut it the way I do as a result of about 40 years of study of it and having been one as well. I’m not tossing what I say into the ring without very due consideration. What are you doing?

Do you have a problem with a philosophy class teaching the philosophy of Plato? Or a math class teaching Aristotle’s mathematics?

It seems you hold ancient history to the same standard you must reject these things and many others.

 

[Sochi]

Do you have a problem with a philosophy class teaching the philosophy of Plato? Or a math class teaching Aristotle’s mathematics?

It seems you hold ancient history to the same standard you must reject these things and many others.

We’ve been asked to stay on topic, so I’m going to take a chance that your question goes toward the point made earlier which questions the validity of any denomination holding “truth.”

First, let’s be clear that all the denominations of all religions were very likely started with good intentions. And how one defines “holds” has a lot to do with it as well. And it seems to me that no denomination is devoid of truth. It seems to me that the OP is going for acknowledgement that the some 40,000 christianist sects derive originally from the Catholic Church. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that. The reason, however, for the multitudinous branches of the christianist tree, is disagreement regarding some “truth.” So instead of reverts, mostly, you have further divisions. That in itself is to me a mark of incompleteness.

But as far as I can see, the “truth” of anything isn’t in the dogmatization and what goes with that. Neither is it in some pedigree of of historic lineage. That’s is legalism. It seems to have validity because of the very sincere, I think, attribution people give their Chuuhes of being some way to connect with the “Unknown,” that is to say, God. “God” being necessarily a place holder word, and perhaps one of the most abused ever.

That is why I feel that, disagreements aside, Pope Francis is a fabulous example of what it is to be Christian. He knows it isn’t about him and the trappings. It is about the foundation of worship based in being made in/as the image and likeness of Deity. But what leads to the discovery of that as an experience is what may be at question here at the root, rather than the pedigree of the mainline belief in the validity of an abstraction of history. And that was where my contention with the Church stems from, along with disbelief of its internal verification of its alleged authority. With all due respect for those who go along with that story, I’m convinced that it is misinterpreted.

And again, it is due to my respect for ancient history that I say that. My Dad was an amateur Egyptologist, and my Salesian history teacher was absolutely fabulous–he specialized in Middle Eastern history, and I relished the subject. So I’m a bit vague on why you think I’m rejecting anything other than what is an incomplete understanding, from my personal point of view, of what stems for me from pretty thorough study of the subject through a number of disciplines most lay worshipers don’t undertake.

Interestingly, on visiting my history teacher at his rectory a few months ago, we discovered that very many of the conclusions I had come to on my own were congruent with his post doctoral studies in history and scripture. So, Jon S, we may not agree, but i’m not just blowing hot air here. I’m only saying, in fact, that the OP question is semantically unsound to a large degree, and therefore, like so many threads on here, tends to miss what could be a very interesting mark. In other words, piety is ultimately a poor substitute for strenuous self inquiry and scholarly application, however emotionally satisfying that piety may be for the moment.

 

[benhur]

I have red the early church fathers. Most of them through the second century. It is beyond clear to me that they celebrated mass! I found this as a Protestant not looking at them to convert but to defend a Protestant doctrinal position.

Now it depends on what you mean by mass, for they certainly didn’t call it that. Actually don’t know when that term began do you ? Again I read them as meeting on sundays and having a "service’’ that could pretty much be universal to all believers today.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Now it depends on what you mean by mass, for they certainly didn’t call it that. Actually don’t know when that term began do you ? Again I read them as meeting on sundays and having a "service’’ that could pretty much be universal to all believers today.

Mass comes from Latin at the end of the liturgy.

“Ite, missa est.”

That is undoubtedly later as far as terminology.

What I mean is the descriptions of readings, prayers, and most importantly in this matter, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The most vivid early description I would say is Justin Martyr’s, First Apology (around 150 AD)

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

Nothing like the worship band, sermon, closing prayer, symbolic quarterly communion of my Evangelical Church I attended when I first read this.

When I entered a Catholic Church it was as if Justin’s words unfolded before my eyes.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Going further - the earliest Church offered incense together, prayers, readings of Apostles/Bishops letters to the Churches (think Paul to Ephesians, the Letters of Peter, or Letters of Clement, etc), they locked the doors once the readings were completed and only allowed the baptized/confirmed/Communed to gather for the second part focused on the altar.
Here, the high point of all of the readings, incense, sermon was the Prayer of Eucharist where Christ came for all present (a spiritual Second Coming).

Other than the Catholics and Orthodox, which Church does any of this? Perhaps High-Church Anglo-Catholics and Historical Lutherans (who basically claim to be Catholics of a different branch) can claim this continued practice and understanding; definitely NOT any other protestant sects, they don’t even accept this as the reality of what the early church practiced. In regard to the claims of those two (now extremely tiny) protestant sects, the rest of the protestants would say they are following “pagan Catholic ritualism of men”, and nothing more; while they are rejected as lacking various necessary elements of Faith and Praxis by both the Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[benhur]

Mass comes from Latin at the end of the liturgy.

“Ite, missa est.”

That is undoubtedly later as far as terminology.

What I mean is the descriptions of readings, prayers, and most importantly in this matter, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The most vivid early description I would say is Justin Martyr’s, First Apology (around 150 AD)

Nothing like the worship band, sermon, closing prayer, symbolic quarterly communion of my Evangelical Church I attended when I first read this.

When I entered a Catholic Church it was as if Justin’s words unfolded before my eyes.

In determining which denomination has it right you have to read all of Martyr’s writings on the subject. Not to say you won’t see them as Catholic also but they certainly might explain better where “other” views come from. What you quoted certainly seems like CC RP , but no more than CC view on scripture/RP. I say that because if we differ on scripture references to RP we will differ on Fathers saying similar things.