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

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course, I do believe that I am correct, but that is only because I’ve looked at the evidence and come to a rationale conclusion.

There is nothing inherent about my beliefs that make me infallible. I am correct, only insofar as I purport well supported doctrine that makes sense and produces good fruit.

For the Catholic Church it goes like this:

The Church is infallible.

How do you know?

Because the Church said so.

So?

The Church is infallible.

Its a circular argument. What you base that off of is the “Gates of Hades”, but then if I say, well no that doesn’t mean that the Church is infallible, and then the Church just overrules me because the Church is infallible.

How do you expect me to take your argument seriously when you write something like this?

You are ascribing a beliefs to all Catholics that “we believe it because the Church says so”… I don’t think I have ever seen a wider brush than this one…

You mean to tell me that none of us have looked at the evidence and used our reason to arrive at a conclusion? The more I think about what you said, the more angry I get.

Also, because some people have used the “Gates of Hades” argument, you are going to apply it to our conversation, when I have not used it once?

Also, what do you think infallibility is claimed on? And what are the requirements?

Have I said the people in the Church have not erred?

This is what I see is scholasticism. There’s not an appreciation of mystery. I don’t believe there was ever a “Great Apostasy” that is the faith that Christ gave to His apostles never “died” but I don’t think that means that the Church can never be wrong.

We don’t believe that the people in the Church can never be wrong. Only when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals.

I also think it is inaccurate to believe that the apostolic faith “evolves”. There is just the one faith that was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone. I’m not comfortable with the addition of new articles of faith that we have to believe in.

Then, in all honesty, you need to do a lot more reading. Scriptures developed, Articles Developed. As the Faith is attacked we are in need to specify what the Faith means exactly. Otherwise, all you’d have left is Gnosticism and a myriad of various denominations.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

Thanks for the link, although it was hard to read it with only one eye

 

[JonNC]

OK, great. Now, if a Catholic wants to ordain, say, a female or openly gay bishop, and can’t find a Catholic bishop to ordain such, would it be likewise valid to allow a priest to “ordain” such a person?

Gosh, I wouldn’t think so. Would you? Since my communion is as adamant in opposing these types of “ordinations” as yours, I suspect you ought to ask someone who believes in them. I suspect, however, they won’t tell you that female ordination, or the ordination of anyone living in an “open” relationship outside the bonds of marriage is supported by scripture or by the Tradition of the historic Church Catholic. Because they are not.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Gosh, I wouldn’t think so. Would you? Since my communion is as adamant in opposing these types of “ordinations” as yours, I suspect you ought to ask someone who believes in them.

No, I wanted to ask you, since you claimed that it’s ok to have priests ordain bishops in the event that you can’t find a bishop to perform the ordination.

The reason that Catholic Bishops wouldn’t ordain followers of Luther was because of theological differences.

The reason you wouldn’t advocate ordaining openly gay or female bishops is because of theological differences.

Seems to me a case of special pleading to argue that you wouldn’t allow ordination in this case, but not in another.

It’s probably based on your interpretation of scripture. But they also interpret scripture for themselves, as do you. Who decides which interpretation is valid? MY answer, and the Catholic answer, would be to follow the way that Jesus provided to answer just such a question: “tell it to the Church.”

I suspect, however, they won’t tell you that female ordination, or the ordination of anyone living in an “open” relationship outside the bonds of marriage is supported by scripture or by the Tradition of the historic Church Catholic. Because they are not.

Jon

They’ll appeal to scripture. More specifically, to their personal (fallible) interpretation of scripture, as do all protestants.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12311968]No, I wanted to ask you, since you claimed that it’s ok to have priests ordain bishops in the event that you can’t find a bishop to perform the ordination.

No. Presbyters ordain presbyters.

T

he reason that Catholic Bishops wouldn’t ordain followers of Luther was because of theological differences.

Correct.

The reason you wouldn’t advocate ordaining openly gay or female bishops is because of theological differences.

Yes. Both scripture and Tradition.

Seems to me a case of special pleading to argue that you wouldn’t allow ordination in this case, but not in another.

Our communion provides evidence that in the 14th century presbyter ordination did happen. And frankly it did in the early Church. I’ve seen no evidence of female ordination in the early Church, either through episcopacy, or by presbyters.

It’s probably based on your interpretation of scripture. But they also interpret scripture for themselves, as do you. Who decides which interpretation is valid? MY answer, and the Catholic answer, would be to follow the way that Jesus provided to answer just such a question: “tell it to the Church.”

And Tradition. I know that you be your answer, and its a good one. Its better than the ones I am hearing from those who have distanced themselves from the Church Catholic by ordaining women.

They’ll appeal to scripture. More specifically, to their personal (fallible) interpretation of scripture, as do all protestants.

Well, I appealed to Tradition and scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

FathersKnowBest:
It seems the ordination of “Roman Catholic Women Priests” has lareday happened, and they claim their bishops were ordained by male Catholic bishops, making their ordinations valid.

The ordinations of Roman Catholic Womenpriests are valid because of our apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. The principal consecrating Roman Catholic male bishops who ordained our first women bishops are bishops with apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, our bishops validly ordain deacons, priests and bishops. Consequently, all qualified candidates, including baptized ministers and priests from other Christian traditions, who are presented to our bishops for ordination are ordained by the laying on of hands in apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church.

romancatholicwomenpriests.org/ordained.htm

Actually, its nonsense.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No. Presbyters ordain presbyters.

Except that they don’t.

Yes. Both scripture and Tradition.

Not according to them.
Why is YOUR personal interpretation valid, and theirs not?

Our communion provides evidence that in the 14th century presbyter ordination did happen. And frankly it did in the early Church.

Not very credible evidence. Quite dubious, in fact.

I’ve seen no evidence of female ordination in the early Church, either through episcopacy, or by presbyters.

Some falsely claim that there were female deaconesses.
With about as much evidence as for presbyter ordination.

Well, I appealed to Tradition and scripture.

Jon

But that’s a selective appellation. You seem to discount Tradition and Scripture in the case of, say, Papal supremacy.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12312109]Except that they don’t.

In a few cases that have, even in the CC.

N

ot according to them.
Why is YOUR personal interpretation valid, and theirs not?

As I said, if they can show from Tradition that the historic Church Catholic ordained women, in the east or west, let them provide it.

Not very credible evidence. Quite dubious, in fact.

I haven’t seen a denial of it that is credible.

Some falsely claim that there were female deaconesses.
With about as much evidence as for presbyter ordination.

Tell that to the popes in the 14th century.

But that’s a selective appellation. You seem to discount Tradition and Scripture in the case of, say, Papal supremacy.

No, I just recognize that, even excluding my communion from the discussion, the notion of supremacy has been disputed by all but one of the patriarchs of the Church Catholic.

Solve that, my friend. Please.

Jon

 

[Godspells]

How do you expect me to take your argument seriously when you write something like this?

You are ascribing a beliefs to all Catholics that “we believe it because the Church says so”… I don’t think I have ever seen a wider brush than this one…

You mean to tell me that none of us have looked at the evidence and used our reason to arrive at a conclusion? The more I think about what you said, the more angry I get.

Also, because some people have used the “Gates of Hades” argument, you are going to apply it to our conversation, when I have not used it once?

Also, what do you think infallibility is claimed on? And what are the requirements?

Have I said the people in the Church have not erred?

We don’t believe that the people in the Church can never be wrong. Only when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals.

Then, in all honesty, you need to do a lot more reading. Scriptures developed, Articles Developed. As the Faith is attacked we are in need to specify what the Faith means exactly. Otherwise, all you’d have left is Gnosticism and a myriad of various denominations.

I’m sorry I offended you Isaiah, I’m really not trying to disparage your faith. I honestly believe the Catholic Faith is far closer to the original church the most Protestant churches. However I also know that Catholics are not allowed to teach anything contrary to Church doctrine. Clergy and Laity can and have been deposed or excommunicated because they’ve taught contrary to doctrine for instance on Papal infallibility or contraception.

That’s fine, but they justify it by magisterial infallibility which is not defined in scripture.

I honestly don’t feel like the Church distinguishes between the apostolic faith which is contained in the Gospel and what are doctrines that developed and evolve with the times. The former is necessary, but the latter is not and I don’t believe is infallible either.

But of course I respect your faith and the Church is much older than I so please accept my apology for offending you.

 

[mackbrislawn]

=Godspells;1230977

So then, laying of hands simply canonized (or recognized) what God had already decided.

That’s how we know what God has decided.

So, while we certainly don’t know for sure if God has appointed apostolic successors outside of the ordinary line of succession, you Catholics certainly have to recognize the potential for it.

Yes, the potential exists. Who knows, maybe it’s the Mormons who have it now! Or maybe the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

We get to caught up in trying to know if some denominations has apostolic succession in the legalistic sense, as to whether they have a direct line to Peter and the Apostles, when instead we ought to be focused on whether someone transmits the apostolic faith.

Nice, but how do we know what the apostolic faith is so we can tell if they are transmitting it?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m sorry I offended you Isaiah, I’m really not trying to disparage your faith. I honestly believe the Catholic Faith is far closer to the original church the most Protestant churches. However I also know that Catholics are not allowed to teach anything contrary to Church doctrine. Clergy and Laity can and have been deposed or excommunicated because they’ve taught contrary to doctrine for instance on Papal infallibility or contraception.

That’s fine, but they justify it by magisterial infallibility which is not defined in scripture.

I honestly don’t feel like the Church distinguishes between the apostolic faith which is contained in the Gospel and what are doctrines that developed and evolve with the times. The former is necessary, but the latter is not and I don’t believe is infallible either.

But of course I respect your faith and the Church is much older than I so please accept my apology for offending you.

You need to realize, step back and re read your posts, or simply reflect on it for a bit.

You do believe in an infallible Pope, an infallible magesterium.

It is just YOU are the pope and YOU are the magesterium.

Sadly, the church never ever functioned this way, and never ever said each individual is the final authority. Actually it taught quite the opposite. It is clear in the early church writings and the Bible. The Church had the authority. The Church as a whole in union with the Apostles.

Matt 18. If you need a dispute settled you take it to the Church, and the Church will say you are right and you are wrong. The wrong party MUST submit to the church or be excommunicated (treated as a heathen or tax collector).

I would encourage you strongly to reflect on the ramifications of that.

That coupled with the Fact that God willed his church to have authority, to never fail, and to be one…and if he is God…he can do that and he does do that.

I would also encourage you to be baptized. The Bible is clear “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21) just as Noah was saved by water on the ark (he actually had to get on the ark).

Never in the Bible do we see people becoming Christians without Baptism…NEVER.

It is a heresy and a lie of the Satan that has spread this notion that Baptism is not necessary. He desires in the destruction of souls and his poisonous message has spread far.

 

[Godspells]

You need to realize, step back and re read your posts, or simply reflect on it for a bit.

You do believe in an infallible Pope, an infallible magesterium.

It is just YOU are the pope and YOU are the magesterium.

Sadly, the church never ever functioned this way, and never ever said each individual is the final authority. Actually it taught quite the opposite. It is clear in the early church writings and the Bible. The Church had the authority. The Church as a whole in union with the Apostles.

Matt 18. If you need a dispute settled you take it to the Church, and the Church will say you are right and you are wrong. The wrong party MUST submit to the church or be excommunicated (treated as a heathen or tax collector).

I would encourage you strongly to reflect on the ramifications of that.

That coupled with the Fact that God willed his church to have authority, to never fail, and to be one…and if he is God…he can do that and he does do that.

I would also encourage you to be baptized. The Bible is clear “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21) just as Noah was saved by water on the ark (he actually had to get on the ark).

Never in the Bible do we see people becoming Christians without Baptism…NEVER.

It is a heresy and a lie of the Satan that has spread this notion that Baptism is not necessary. He desires in the destruction of souls and his poisonous message has spread far.

LOL

I actually use that Pope line on a lot of arrogant protestant friends also. Don’t worry, we’re on the same page. I’m not for an the abolition of a magisetrium but I do feel like the role of the magisetrium needs to be better defined. And I think dogmatically defining infallibility and things like that is not helpful.

I also agree with you on the importance of baptism and hopefully I will be baptized soon.

When you look at how the Eastern Orthodox Church functions, it is just as old as Catholic, has a sort of teaching authority, but is much more lenient in deviation and far less focused on dogmatically defining every aspect of the faith.

Unfortunately, Orthodox are less focused on missionary work and charity than Catholics.

 

[Jon_S_1]

LOL

I actually use that Pope line on a lot of arrogant protestant friends also. Don’t worry, we’re on the same page. I’m not for an the abolition of a magisetrium but I do feel like the role of the magisetrium needs to be better defined. And I think dogmatically defining infallibility and things like that is not helpful.

I also agree with you on the importance of baptism and hopefully I will be baptized soon.

When you look at how the Eastern Orthodox Church functions, it is just as old as Catholic, has a sort of teaching authority, but is much more lenient in deviation and far less focused on dogmatically defining every aspect of the faith.

Unfortunately, Orthodox are less focused on missionary work and charity than Catholics.

Hmmmm

I think the orthodox tend to be all about dogmatic orthodoxy and holding it right and strict. No they don’t define everything like Catholics do,but they are pretty strict.

The problem with orthodoxy IMO is they are stuck in the past and unable to engage the world effectively today without a unified Magesterium and the living voice of the pope to call councils and settle dispute among bishops and the church in general.

As you’ve observed, this results in lacking missionary work.

Glad to hear you will move forward on your baptism!

Looking forward to discussions in the future welcome to the forums.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, I do believe that I am correct, but that is only because I’ve looked at the evidence and come to a rationale conclusion.

There is nothing inherent about my beliefs that make me infallible. I am correct, only insofar as I purport well supported doctrine that makes sense and produces good fruit.

I can certainly support that right doctrine makes sense and produces good fruit, but there are also many things that make sense and produce good fruit that have nothing to do with right doctrine.

For the Catholic Church it goes like this:

The Church is infallible.

How do you know?

Because the Church said so.

So?

The Church is infallible.

Its a circular argument.

I can see your point, even though it fails in accuracy. What makes the Church infallible is her divine elements. Like Christ, she is incarnate, with both divine and human natures. It is not the fallible humans who are part of her that make her infallible, but the divine. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these elements that make her infallible. The Scriptures witness to these facts.

What you base that off of is the "Gates of Hades", but then if I say, well no that doesn't mean that the Church is infallible, and then the Church just overrules me because the Church is infallible.

The foundation lies in the promises of Christ. Yes, He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over the church. He also promised to remain with her until the end of days. He promised HIs Spirit would lead her into “all truth”. We rely upon these promises because we believe that God is infallible.

This is what I see is scholasticism. There’s not an appreciation of mystery.

I think you lost me here. Do you imagine that the gift of infallibility means that there is nothing left in mystery?

Infallibility is a negative gift, that prevents error from being taught. It doesn’t mean that all the mysteries of the faith can be explained.

I don’t believe there was ever a “Great Apostasy” that is the faith that Christ gave to His apostles never “died” but I don’t think that means that the Church can never be wrong.

People can be wrong, and leaders can make mistakes, but the Apostolic faith is infallibly preserved because Jesus made sure human failings would not allow it to be lost.

I also think it is inaccurate to believe that the apostolic faith “evolves”. There is just the one faith that was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone. I’m not comfortable with the addition of new articles of faith that we have to believe in.

To an extent this is very Catholic. We believe that there was a “once for all” divine deposit of faith to which nothing can be added or subtracted. What changes is our understanding of the faith, which we call “development”. The addition articles of faith are pronouncements made by the Church to clarify what is to be believed and to prevent the faithful from falling into heresy. Some examples of these articles of faith are the list of books that belong in the Bible, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the Holy Theotokos.

 

[rfournier103]

Actually Peter tells us that we are a nation of priests.

1Peter2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

1loved

Peter does indeed tell us that.

The Bible also tells us…

Acts 20:17 ~ From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned. (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presbyter)

**Acts 20:28 **~ Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. (evidence of a hierarchy - not just “every man is a priest”)

**1 Tim. 5:17 **~ Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. (there’s that word again… The Catholic Church has presbyters/priests who toil in preaching and teaching)

**Titus 1:5 **~ For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you (It sounds here like the office of presbyter/priest is an appointed one; not simply “Joe Six-Pack is a Christian, so therefore he is a priest”.)

**James 5:14 **~ Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord (Here it seems that these “presbyters” have some kind of power/authority that the rest of the ‘royal priesthood’ does not have.)

You do raise an interesting point, 1loved… If we’re ALL priests, why would we ever need these presbyters/priests at all?

 

[pablope]

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

Although the Luth. symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Swed., political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Luth. community. Lacking bps. to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Luths. appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bps. and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain);

Okay…the operative word here is…the Cistercians were authorized by Popes.

Even Titus and Timothy were authorized by Paul. It is not one own’ authority to ordain, there is an authority to authorize it. Even Paul himself was ordained prior to going on his first missionary journey.

Who authorized the Lutherans except themselves?

that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72).

So if a bishop refused to ordain, for certain reasons…what is one supposed to do:

Thumb one’s nose at the bishop and say, it does not matter what you say…I will go about my business and ordain someone?

Or pray for the bishop to change his mind…and pray for humility to accept the bishop’s decision?

When a bishop decides against ordaining someone…is this not exercising the binding and loosing authority granted to the bishop?

The succession of the ministry in the Luth. Ch. may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

So you just presumed it to be valid? If you just presumed it…how does that give it validity if you just presumed on your own authority?

 

[pablope]

And from the confessions:

Jon

For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.

Well…for one thing…do you think the Fathers, through the Apostles, were guided by the HS in setting up the manner of Church government? Do you think the Fathers just acted willy nilly in setting up the manner of government and discipline within the Church?

So instead of seeking reform within the Church, praying for our leaders, as the Bible says…you throw the canonical government set up by the Fathers?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Okay…the operative word here is…the Cistercians were authorized by Popes.

It’s far more tenuous of an argument than that.
The Catholic Encyclopedia addresses it here:

Minister

The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — “A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain.” A council held at Alexandria (340) declared the orders conferred by Caluthus, a presbyter, null and void (Athanas., “Apol. contra Arianos”, ii). For the custom said to have existed in the Church of Alexandria see EGYPT. Nor can objection be raised from the fact that chorepiscopi are known to have ordained priests, as there can be no doubt that some chorepiscopi were in bishops’ orders (Gillman, “Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient,” Munich, 1903; Hefele-Leclercq, “Conciles”, II, 1197-1237). No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope, but a simple priest may be thus authorized to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate. It is generally denied that priests can confer priests’ orders, and history, certainly, records no instance of the exercise of such extraordinary ministry. The diaconate cannot be conferred by a simple priest, according to the majority of theologians. This is sometimes questioned, as Innocent VIII is said to have granted the privilege to Cistercian abbots (1489), but the genuineness of the concession is very doubtful. For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization (see below).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m sorry I offended you Isaiah, I’m really not trying to disparage your faith. I honestly believe the Catholic Faith is far closer to the original church the most Protestant churches. However I also know that Catholics are not allowed to teach anything contrary to Church doctrine. Clergy and Laity can and have been deposed or excommunicated because they’ve taught contrary to doctrine for instance on Papal infallibility or contraception.

That’s fine, but they justify it by magisterial infallibility which is not defined in scripture.

I honestly don’t feel like the Church distinguishes between the apostolic faith which is contained in the Gospel and what are doctrines that developed and evolve with the times. The former is necessary, but the latter is not and I don’t believe is infallible either.

But of course I respect your faith and the Church is much older than I so please accept my apology for offending you.

Thank you.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You do believe in an infallible Pope, an infallible magesterium.

It is just YOU are the pope and YOU are the magesterium.

The first time I heard this argument used, I got so frustrated, I kicked my dinosaur.