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

[dronald]

If this is your standard for rejecting the Latin Rite Catholic Church as a True Church, how can you accept Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, or most any Western protestant/evangelical/etc sect, except some recent modern innovation as “really the Church”? The only sects that could pass, according to these standards are maybe the Assyrian Church of the East, if one overlooks a few internal squabbles; perhaps the Syriac Orthodox Church, if one overlooks a few internal squabbles; maybe some of the Eastern Catholics like the Russian Catholic Church or the Coptic Catholics, and the St. Thomas Christians of South India, now divided among 2 Eastern Catholic Churches and 2 Orthodox Churches. Sinful humans have used and will use secular forces to try to conform others to their will, whether Catholic or protestant or Orthodox. I don’t know that this should be a determining factor.

It’s not about what the people did, it’s about what the Church declared as an official teaching. Assuming that the CC still holds that they were not in error when passing those documents to be believed by all Christians then it’s another pressing issue that keeps me from being Catholic.

If however, the Church believes they were in error and have now fixed it with cool cats like Francis then that is great. But what that does is give evidence that others at that time were right for separating when official declarations of extermination were made. Although, such a dispute may cause your extermination… Especially if it has to do with the Eucharist.

 

[joe371]

Not intending to speak for Per Crucem, but Lutheranism recognizes the validity of Catholic clergy, if that’s what you mean, even if we disagree with you theologically regarding the nature of the priesthood.
Jon

A valid priesthood which comes from Jesus Christ, but the theology regarding the nature of Jesus’ one Priesthood is possibly wrong. In what way?

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: **"Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19 **

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s not about what the people did, it’s about what the Church declared as an official teaching. Assuming that the CC still holds that they were not in error when passing those documents to be believed by all Christians then it’s another pressing issue that keeps me from being Catholic.

If however, the Church believes they were in error and have now fixed it with cool cats like Francis then that is great. But what that does is give evidence that others at that time were right for separating when official declarations of extermination were made. Although, such a dispute may cause your extermination… Especially if it has to do with the Eucharist.

Did each of the Calvinists, Lutheran, Anglican, etc bodies all denounce their error in their pasts with official documents?

The Catholic Church, especially the Latin Church, has apologized for it’s past mistakes time and again. In regard to torture and extermination statements, while it didn’t advocate it, it did allow the secular law to do what it felt was for the common good. Today, the Latin Church is generally against the death penalty, but it does acknowledge the right of the secular authority to deem the death penalty, if it is the only way to protect the common good. Going back even further, have the various Jewish sects today apologized for the bann ordered by God, to exterminate (I believe) the Amorites?

 

[dronald]

I would like to go back to Ignatius of Antioch, since that part of my thread went unanswered.

How do Protestants respond to reading quotes such as these from the very very early church, from a Bishop who was made Bishop within 25 years of Christ resurrection, in the town all the Christians fled to from Jerusalem…Antioch.

John Calvin responded to these by calling them fake and fabrications since they completely contradicted his ecclesiology. We know better now and know from Protestant, Catholic and Secular sources, that the short forms found with Eusebius are authentic.

So what say ye??

Letter to the Smyrenaeans;

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

or his letters to the Philladelphians

Quote:
2:1 Being, therefore, children of light and truth, avoid division and evil teachings; but where the shepherd is, there do ye follow as sheep.

2:2 For many wolves, which seem worthy of belief, lead captive by evil pleasure them who were running the godly race. But in your unity they shall find no opportunity.

CHAPTER 3
3:1 Abstain from evil herbage, which Jesus Christ doth not cultivate, because it is not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found division among you, but thorough purity.

3:2 For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the bishop; and as many as have repented, and have entered into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall be of God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.

3:3 Be not deceived, my brethren; if any one followeth a schismatic, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God; if any man walketh in an alien opinion, he agreeth not with the passion of Christ.

CHAPTER 4
4:1 Be diligent, therefore, to use one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup, for union with his blood; one altar, even as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, who are my fellow-servants, to the end that whatever ye do, ye may do it according unto God.

I think the “Schism” part is fascinating, seeing as either the RCC or Orthodoxy have a schism and one of them are not going to Heaven according to Ignatius.

Why don’t Catholics use the original Greek epískopos or presbýteros or translate it to “overseer” or elder or senior? We certainly have those, and we give thanks and take communion. We don’t call them Priest or Bishop; we just have different words.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

To the contrary - the Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth. The Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church will not err on matters of faith and dogma. Through much prayer, discernment, and study, I have come to accept and treasure this gift from God. The question is, for those who don’t accept this, how do you determine what the truth is?
Which version of the Holy Spirit do you decide to follow?

Only God can have fully adequate knowledge of the truth. Because humans are fallible and finite beings, we cannot, because of our nature (1Cor 13:12). So to me, a claim that any church holds the fullness of the truth would be wrongly applying attributes that belong exclusively to God to human beings, and would be a violation of both the First Commandment and basic logic.

In my view, the Catholic Church has transgressed on many matters of faith and dogma–as no doubt has every other denomination–because all churches are composed of human beings. There is no such thing as a perfect church because they are all run by humans. All human understanding, and transmission of that understanding, is partial.

The divisions within the Church themselves show that God continues to work in spite of our human haughtiness and recalcitrance (Acts 5:38). If it were not God’s will, it wouldn’t be happening.

 

[dronald]

Did each of the Calvinists, Lutheran, Anglican, etc bodies all denounce their error in their pasts with official documents?

The Catholic Church, especially the Latin Church, has apologized for it’s past mistakes time and again. In regard to torture and extermination statements, while it didn’t advocate it, it did allow the secular law to do what it felt was for the common good. Today, the Latin Church is generally against the death penalty, but it does acknowledge the right of the secular authority to deem the death penalty, if it is the only way to protect the common good. Going back even further, have the various Jewish sects today apologized for the bann ordered by God, to exterminate (I believe) the Amorites?

The difference is that those documents were binding on all Christians everywhere; and I don’t know if they’re accepted truths still or denied as untrue and a mistake.

The CC certainly advocated extermination of heretics.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Only God can have fully adequate knowledge of the truth. Because humans are fallible and finite beings, we cannot, because of our nature (1Cor 13:12). So to me, a claim that any church holds the fullness of the truth would be wrongly applying attributes that belong exclusively to God to human beings, and would be a violation of both the First Commandment and basic logic.

You would be in error to assume that a sinful state (concupiscence) means human nature is evil. Human nature in it’s fullness, is made in God’s image and likeness, and is therefore “very good.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why don’t Catholics use the original Greek epískopos or presbýteros or translate it to “overseer” or elder or senior? We certainly have those, and we give thanks and take communion. We don’t call them Priest or Bishop; we just have different words.

Different meanings of what an ordination or sacrament is as well; some protestants think ordination is temporary others permanent; some think an elder is ordained, others not; some say an overseer or elder can be female, others not; etc, etc.

 

[dronald]

Different meanings of what an ordination or sacrament is as well; some protestants think ordination is temporary others permanent; some think an elder is ordained, others not; some say an overseer or elder can be female, others not; etc, etc.

Similarly there is a discrepancy between Orthodoxy and Catholicism over the unpriesting of a Priest isn’t there?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Similarly there is a discrepancy between Orthodoxy and Catholicism over the unpriesting of a Priest isn’t there?

Not really no.

 

[dronald]

Not really no.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-laicization-remove-a-priests-powers

The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with the sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization, although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a layman, in a sense “once a priest, always a priest.”

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Eastern Orthodox doctrine does not state that the priesthood confers an indelible character on the person’s soul. Laicization removes the ordained status completely

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You would be in error to assume that a sinful state (concupiscence) means human nature is evil. Human nature in it’s fullness, is made in God’s image and likeness, and is therefore “very good.”

I’m was referring our nature as finite beings that don’t and can’t know everything in reference to truth.

 

[SyroMalankara]

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-laicization-remove-a-priests-powers

The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with the sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization, although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a layman, in a sense “once a priest, always a priest.”

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Eastern Orthodox doctrine does not state that the priesthood confers an indelible character on the person’s soul. Laicization removes the ordained status completely

What does Eastern Catholicism say? What does Oriental Orthodoxy say?

There are lots of theologumena regarding status and indelible characters, the practice is the same. Once “laicized” or “defrocked”, the man cannot function as priest.

 

[dronald]

What does Eastern Catholicism say? What does Oriental Orthodoxy say?

There are lots of theologumena regarding status and indelible characters, the practice is the same. Once “laicized” or “defrocked”, the man cannot function as priest.

But does the person remain a Priest in all groups?

 

[marywarfield]

Only God can have fully adequate knowledge of the truth. Because humans are fallible and finite beings, we cannot, because of our nature (1Cor 13:12). So to me, a claim that any church holds the fullness of the truth would be wrongly applying attributes that belong exclusively to God to human beings, and would be a violation of both the First Commandment and basic logic.

In my view, the Catholic Church has transgressed on many matters of faith and dogma–as no doubt has every other denomination–because all churches are composed of human beings. There is no such thing as a perfect church because they are all run by humans. All human understanding, and transmission of that understanding, is partial.

The divisions within the Church themselves show that God continues to work in spite of our human haughtiness and recalcitrance (Acts 5:38). If it were not God’s will, it wouldn’t be happening.

The problems with your statement are:
It directly contradicts Christ in Scripture on so many
levels I hardly know where to begin.

It implies a profound distrust of both Christ and the
Holy Spirit.

And of course from our point of view since Christ
promised to remain substantially present to us
and we have no reason to believe that He lied about
that obviously then God is with us as Christ is God,
the Holy Spirit is also God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I recall when I was non denominational I found the need for there to be continuity. That it seemed to me ridiculous that the faith could be so easily lost within a generation (Like immediately after john died). If someone like Ignatius, a martyr, who believed in the Bishopric so strongly, the real presence, that a church is not defined by the scriptures it has or reads but rather the belief in Christ and his passion and resurrection got things so wrong, then what hope is there for any of us? He was someone who was alive and active in the generation of the apostles, from one of the churches they established (Antioch). We would be pretty arrogant to suggest we could get it so right and then say he must have got it so wrong.

So I came to the same conclusion as you OP, that there can only be two choices, Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Anything else is suspect.

 

[benhur]

I love that you quoted these.

How would you then answer that PRIOR to the Reformation, there was no disputing, and it was Universally held:

Infant Baptism
Real Presence in the Eucharist
The priestly office
The Authority of Bishops in the Church

(to start with) It really seems that all of these things are creations of the reformation that are “contrary to what was taught” for 1500 years all the way to the time of Christ.

There was some disputing, don’t have time now but I can’t believe you don’t know about these disputes, and or those that held differing views. Reformation ideas did not pop out of thin air.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But does the person remain a Priest in all groups?

What is “priest” - “offerer of sacrifices”. A “defrocked”/“laicized” is not to do this. The only speculation is whether he “can”, the answer is, it depends.

 

[dronald]

What is “priest” - “offerer of sacrifices”. A “defrocked”/“laicized” is not to do this. The only speculation is whether he “can”, the answer is, it depends.

So why does the CC claim “once a Priest, always a Priest” even while laicized?

It seems the Orthodox do not claim, “once a Priest, always a Priest”

 

[Jon_S_1]

There was some disputing, don’t have time now but I can’t believe you don’t know about these disputes, and or those that held differing views. Reformation ideas did not pop out of thin air.

Your right. The same church that declared Arius a heretic for denying the Trinity declared many of these other notions heresy as well. It is just now people choose to follow the schismatic and the falsehood of heresy since they refuse to allow the church to shepherd them.