Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1beleevr
Not doubting that the apostles had successors; just questioning(not attacking) whether said successors are only in the catholic church

To say that the only successors to the faith came solely from the CC is arrogant.

Many opposers to the CC were tortured and many killed.

Is this the church that represents our Lord who said to love our enemies, to bless those who attack us?

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

Yet nowadays, many opposers to “bible only” churches are tortured and killed. I can think of a few groups such as the Sons of Freedom, Lambs of Christ, Christian Patriot, the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Tripura Baptist church, Christian Identity, and CSA. All of these groups are non-Catholic and are “bible only”. Their hands are stained with the blood of innocent people. They are protestant Christians not unlike you are, heiscominginthe. Do THEY represent our Lord who said to love our enemies, to bless those who attack us?

The problem with your logic is that the Catholic Church was not systematically killing people. Wayward sinners within the Church were. The fact of the matter is that we have never believed in forced conversion.

Neither have you. If the erroneous way you present the Catholic Church in the middle ages was true, logically, it would mean that today, “bible only” Christians all believe in forced conversion.

Some Catholics killed in the middle ages. And some Protestants kill today. But it doesn’t have to continue like this! We Catholic Christians, and the whole Church have learned from our past errors. Anti-modernist, and sometimes militant, Protestant Christian fundamentalism is on the rise in the US and now, Protestants are beginning to realize what is going on around them.

Let’s not repeat the past. Instead of throwing insults at each other, instead of calling each other murders, why not try exercising the grace, love, and peace that Christ can give us!

 

[JRKH]

Absolutely, …the one thing I can do with infallibility is to know what I am thinking.

I beg your pardon on some of the above as I was thinking “certianty” as I wa styping “infallibility”. Though the gist remains the same.
A Protestant feels justified in telling a catholic they are wrong while holding to the concept of personal interpretation by the Holy Spirit. And When say I don’t see it that way, I am nto given the same leeway as a protestant from another faith community. (Just my viewpoint I know)

I understand that you are using “know” to mean absolute 100% certainty. Humans, by nature are fallible, and therefore, if we only acted when we possessed infallibility we wouldn’t get much, if anything, done. We empower judges to interpret our laws, but only a fool would think any human judge is infallible in his decisions regarding those laws….but we have to function with our limitations.

Humans are indeed fallible. Yet God has used Humans repeatedly to give His revelation to the masses. From Abraham, to Moses, the Priests and Prophets, to Jesus, to the Apostles it has been fallible men who have spoken God’s revelation.

…and if I am 99% (or even 70%) sure that I am right, should I not declare what I believe to be true?

Good Question.
70% ??? No you need to do more study.
99% ??? Maybe you could venture out, but carefully and be willing to listen to others with greater knowledge. This has been my tack. I am sure of Christ in The Church, but I learn so much from others here.

I would suggest that infallibility with respect to doctrine is something that can only be granted by God and I do not claim to have received that gift from God (and see no reason to believe that it is possessed by the RCC).

You are right and this is exactly how the Church view it. Infalliblility on matters of Faith and Morals.

agreed…it seems that you understand that its hierarchy (as identified by you) is gifted with infallibility with respect to its official doctrine (with any bad doctrine put forward by any member of the hierarchy being dismissed as unofficial), but not with respect to its conduct. I see guidance, but don’t see an infallible gifting.

Guidance Leads TO infallible teaching - whether you want to call it a gift or not doesn’t change it.

I would say that for 1500 years this Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and using Biblical Scripture for the whole time maintained a consistent doctrinal base (wrt the original deposit), and basic unity, but during that time uninspired additions were made to that original deposit of faith. I say the “whole time” b/c the OT was always there and used and Paul’s epistles, for example, were there nearly from the very start and were immediately recognized as authoritative (their recognition as God’s Word did not make them God’s Word)

You declare the “additions” as uninspired, and yet as soon as “God’s Word”, so carefully preserved and transmitted by the Church, was torn from the Authority of the Church splintering occurred in doctrine that makes the “Babel” confusion pale in comparison,

This is indeed an unfortunate reality. Splits have occurred over ridiculous details. That being said, if one recognizes that membership in the body of Christ is determined by the presence of the Holy Spirit and not by complete agreement on doctrine, then those disagreements only result in a physical and not a spiritual split in the body of Christ.

I don’t believe splits are inspired.

So this makes it easy and convenient for you but protestants split on issues such as the real presence and the ordination of homosexuals and still be part of the Body of Christ. These are not trivial details.
The Holy spirit cannot be inspiring such things. These things are the true “uninspired additions” and definately NOT founded in the early Church.

you mean 18:17

Yes, but more inclusive - Mt 18:15-18

Cont.

 

[JRKH]

Cont From Above

I would say that the apostles (or those directed by the apostles) recorded some of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and that the early church preserved those writings.

No problem

I would say that the church then relied upon and took from the Jews what the Jews recognized as God’s Word. Within the church there is not a complete consensus as to what the Jews treated as scripture at the time of Christ and therefore slightly different OT canons exist. The church also considered the writings that it had and determined which of those writings possessed apostolic authority. This was rather easy in most cases …It should be noted that by recognizing something as scripture the early church recognized that writing as having an authority that non-scripture did not possess.

The Church determined the OT and NT books both independently AND based on historical evidence. And in the case of NT books, not all of them were easy calls. Revelation was not a terribly popular book.

or why would the church stray from or add to a teaching contained in a letter it received from an apostle? …one way would be to assume that its uninspired additions were inspired.

Depends on the teaching or on how the teaching is understood in teh Church through Sacred Tradion, and on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I understand apostolic authority to be an authority that is inspired and therefore infallible. Paul’s epistles possessed that authority with or without recognition by the church. 1st Clement does not claim to possess that authority nor has it been given that authority. 1st Clement is part of a body of tradition that has less authority than scripture. Jesus taught people directly and not only through the filter of some hierarchy. Likewise the Holy Spirit continues to teach people directly and not through the filter of some hierarchy. B/c fallible humans are involved, mistakes happen. That will be the way it is until we see face to face.

The reason Clement was not included in the Canon had to do with when it was written. The NT books selected were only those nearest to the actual events and/or attribuated directly to an Apostle. (At least that was part of the criterion.
So Clement still contains much good teaching.
Yes Jesus taught directly. Then, as King, He went away for awhile and placed a Vicar in Charge here. This Vicar, along with the college of cardinals and Bishops around the world, He guides.
Yes mistakes can happen, but not on teachins of faith and morals.

Accountability would be to God and to fellow Christians. Infallible authority would be possessed by God and his Word alone. Fallible authority would be possessed by the church and those holding positions of authority within it. I would suggest that the actual problem remains that those with fallible authority act as if they possess infallible authority. Those that sat in the “seat of Moses” possessed fallible authority and by thinking too much of their interpretation placed a yoke upon the children of God.

Peace

Interestnig that you mention the “Seat of Moses” because we all know how Jesus felt about the behavior of the Pharasees. Yet look at what he tells his own disciples:
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)

So Here Jesus is telling the people to trust the teachings of these “fallible men”, even if their actions are sinful, and even though they placed a yoke upon the children of God.

You are quite right in saying that there will be a heavy recogning for those who teach or poorly or otherwise mislead. But what of those who follow the rightful authority? Will not the Good and Just Master be merciful to those servants who remain loyal to the king and his ministers?

(Oh and by the way - I have found The Yoke of the Church is very light to bear compared to trying to figure it all out on my own.)

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1beleevr
Not doubting that the apostles had successors; just questioning(not attacking) whether said successors are only in the catholic church

1beleevr did not say successors to faith, but successors to Apostles…
And it is not arrogent if it is true.
Those Church leaders directly tracable to Apiostles are members of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Not arrogant, just true.
As to successors to faith in Christ, we are all that, Catholic and non-catholic alike.

Many opposers to the CC were tortured and many killed.

Is this the church that represents our Lord who said to love our enemies, to bless those who attack us?

Such statements do nothing to move the conversation forward. They are not appropriate to this thread. If you wish to discuss such issues please start another thread on the topic.

Peace
James

 

[1beleevr]

As best as I can figure, we(non-catholics) are being asked to accept(by faith, I suppose) that all the priests, bishops, cardinals,popes,etc., have been put in place, through something called “apostolic succession”(even those found guilty of molestation).What ever happened to those guys anyway? Did they get, like, “fired”, or just reassigned? Anyway, no matter how much I read, I can’t find proof of “apostolic succession” in scripture.I know that Matthias “replaced” Judas, not succeeded him.And can we really call the pope, the “vicar” of Christ? Wouldn’t that be the Holy Spirit?(Advocate).So, as there is no scriptural basis for apostolic succession(unless you interpret scripture to make it fit), should we just defer to those who claim it and say,“yeah, you’re right, what was I thinking?”.And while Peter played a prominent role in Christ’s plan for His church, can we really consider him to be the “supreme leader” of the apostles? Some would argue that Paul, and James(Jesus’s brother) also had HUGE roles in advancing the Kingdom! In fact, when Peter was slipping a bit and falling back into old Jewish laws and rituals, Paul rebuked him! To infer that a mere mrtal man could have the same authority over the church, as Christ did, is blasphemous at best! And rather than say the pope is infallible(jury’s still out), let’ instead say that Holy scripture is infallible!

 

[MrS]

As best as I can figure, we(non-catholics) are being asked to accept(by faith, I suppose) that all the priests, bishops, cardinals,popes,etc., have been put in place, through something called “apostolic succession”(even those found guilty of molestation).What ever happened to those guys anyway? Did they get, like, “fired”, or just reassigned? Anyway, no matter how much I read, I can’t find proof of “apostolic succession” in scripture.I know that Matthias “replaced” Judas, not succeeded him.And can we really call the pope, the “vicar” of Christ? Wouldn’t that be the Holy Spirit?(Advocate).So, as there is no scriptural basis for apostolic succession(unless you interpret scripture to make it fit), should we just defer to those who claim it and say,“yeah, you’re right, what was I thinking?”.And while Peter played a prominent role in Christ’s plan for His church, can we really consider him to be the “supreme leader” of the apostles? Some would argue that Paul, and James(Jesus’s brother) also had HUGE roles in advancing the Kingdom! In fact, when Peter was slipping a bit and falling back into old Jewish laws and rituals, Paul rebuked him! To infer that a mere mrtal man could have the same authority over the church, as Christ did, is blasphemous at best! And rather than say the pope is infallible(jury’s still out), let’ instead say that Holy scripture is infallible!

Just read your post. Later when I have more time I will try to address some of the many many errors you have made. I assume that you simply do not have proper sources to check on what the Catholic Church really teaches.

I would not be surprised if other posterst weigh in on your problem.

 

[JRKH]

As best as I can figure, we(non-catholics) are being asked to accept(by faith, I suppose) that all the priests, bishops, cardinals,popes,etc., have been put in place, through something called “apostolic succession”(even those found guilty of molestation).What ever happened to those guys anyway? Did they get, like, “fired”, or just reassigned?

It is not so much by faith that we accept that the clergy are, in fact, successors of the Apostles as by lineage. You will note I presume how the Bible takes great pains at times to lay out the lineage of certain personages. Such lineage was considered (name removed by moderator)ortant then. Even Matthew makes sure we know of Jesus lineage.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches has very good records of this succession so the only “faith” required would be that the records are accurate. And again these kinds of things were considered quite important in times past and were carefully preserved where possible.
I don’t know how to answer your question re: the guilty priests - Action has been taken on a case by case basis.

Anyway, no matter how much I read, I can’t find proof of “apostolic succession” in scripture.I know that Matthias “replaced” Judas, not succeeded him.

Neither can we find proof in scripture for Sola Scriptura, or that Everything “Church” needs to be recorded in Scripture. In fact, there is precious little detail in scripture about how the Church evolved during the first century.
When the Bible was assembled, it was intended to compile those earliest writings believed to be authentic and inspired. It was not set up to be a “Torah” for Christians containing all the “New Law”. Selection had nothing whatsoever to do with describing how the Early Church was to be set up and function. This simply evolved through Tradition and the Early Church Fathers as guided by the Holy Spirit. There are of course clues in the NT, after all Bishops are mentioned, and Paul points to “The Church” as the pillar and foundation of Truth.
If you were to choose to read the ECF’s you would find some fascinating facts.
Also, one needs to consider that, between the 1st and 4th Centuries, before the canon of the NT was compiled, the Church was being built up - in spite of persecutions - and the governance of the Church was developing in such a way as to properly 1) protect the deposit of faith and 2) disseminate the deposit of faith.
The fact that you are troubled that you do not find a “blueprint” in the Bible only points to your singular SS view that “everything” should be in the Bible.
Give some thought to how you would set up the Church as it developed in the Early centuries. Doesn’t the Priest, Bishop, Pope heirarchy make sense just from a logical standpoint? Remember that you are trying to protect and defend a Deposito fo faith that is both oral and written, while at teh same time being charged with teaching said faith.

And can we really call the pope, the “vicar” of Christ? Wouldn’t that be the Holy Spirit?(Advocate).

The Holy Spirit is the Invisible Hand of God Guiding force for the Church. The Vicar is the visible head who acts as a “Steward” of the Royal House. I see no consern here.

So, as there is no scriptural basis for apostolic succession(unless you interpret scripture to make it fit), should we just defer to those who claim it and say,“yeah, you’re right, what was I thinking?”.

Since there is no Scriptural Basis for SS or for the canon of Scripture, why do you accept these?
The reason that the you have the NT you do is because those Bishops and Popes that you wish to dismiss assembled, protected, translated and taught from it for 1000 years beofre anyone ever thought of removing the Bible from the Authority of the Church.

And while Peter played a prominent role in Christ’s plan for His church, can we really consider him to be the “supreme leader” of the apostles? Some would argue that Paul, and James(Jesus’s brother) also had HUGE roles in advancing the Kingdom! In fact, when Peter was slipping a bit and falling back into old Jewish laws and rituals, Paul rebuked him!

Again, I would suggest you read the writngs of those who were there in the early days and followed the Apostles as leaders of the Church. Clement, Ignatius and others. Don’t believe me - in the 21 Century - Rather believe those who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Their writings are available. See for yourself what they thought of Peter and Paul and James and all the others.

To infer that a mere mrtal man could have the same authority over the church, as Christ did, is blasphemous at best! And rather than say the pope is infallible(jury’s still out), let’ instead say that Holy scripture is infallible!

your statement shows a misunderstanding of the role and authority of the Pope in the Church. My King is Jesus. I have no other. The Holy Father is the Kings Vicar, duly appointed by the King and given the Keys to His kingdom. This is scriptural and this is how the Early Church Fathers saw it. Now I won’t say that structures, practices, etc haven’t changed over the centuries, nor will I deny that unworthy men have sat upon the Chair of Peter, yet The Holy Spirit, acting through good men and women within the Church have preserved the Chair, and the Kingdom for our King. All without destroying the governance of the Kingdom set up by the King Himself.

When you say Holy Scripture is Infallible, what do you mean?? The Written Word?? Or that which is written in the heart??

Peace
James

 

[1beleevr]

Errors per the teachings of the catholic church, or per the Holy Word of God?

 

[1beleevr]

JKRH: Jesus is also my King, but God is not his vicar, because God is my Holy Father, not the pope:thumbsupMatthew 23:9).The vicar of Christ, if we must call it that is the Holy Spirit(John 14:16-18) who is available to us all(yes, it is possible to be led by the Holy Spirit) and not a man! Vicar means replacement, right? So, that leaves out the pope, as he is a man; whose infallibility is in doubt(at least by non-catholics). And the reason that I used the reference to having faith, is because you are asking us to believe that every MAN, who is now serving in a position of authority(priests, bishops,etc.) is in the apostolic line of succession I believe that God can empower any man to lead His flock, even the pope! But I in good conscience, can not and will not call him holy father, nor will I accept his authority, as the spokesperson for all Christians(just catholics).Was Peter the first pope? Hard to tell; but I know one thing for sure; it is possible to have a personal relationship with the King, as I do, and have had for almost 42 years! Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on things that have become sticking points, like the infallibility of the pope, whether or not confession to a priest is mandatory, necessary, praying through Mary and the saints, etc, and concentrate on advancing the Kingdom!

 

[Always_For_Him]

JKRH: Jesus is also my King, but God is not his vicar, because God is my Holy Father, not the pope:thumbsupMatthew 23:9).The vicar of Christ, if we must call it that is the Holy Spirit(John 14:16-18) who is available to us all(yes, it is possible to be led by the Holy Spirit) and not a man! Vicar means replacement, right? So, that leaves out the pope, as he is a man; whose infallibility is in doubt(at least by non-catholics). And the reason that I used the reference to having faith, is because you are asking us to believe that every MAN, who is now serving in a position of authority(priests, bishops,etc.) is in the apostolic line of succession I believe that God can empower any man to lead His flock, even the pope! But I in good conscience, can not and will not call him holy father, nor will I accept his authority, as the spokesperson for all Christians(just catholics).Was Peter the first pope? Hard to tell; but I know one thing for sure; it is possible to have a personal relationship with the King, as I do, and have had for almost 42 years! Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on things that have become sticking points, like the infallibility of the pope, whether or not confession to a priest is mandatory, necessary, praying through Mary and the saints, etc, and concentrate on advancing the Kingdom!

Did anyone say that God was Jesus’ vicar? Please re-read it. JKRH stated it very beautifully and correctly. Jesus said the words, which all of Christianity abided by. Who is man to change the meaning of Jesus’ Words to suit his own interpretation?

The Holy Spirit is available to all of us, just not to make all of us infallible. That was reserved for only a few. The teaching that the Holy Spirit will guide everyone infallibly is a creation of man in the last 500 years.

Peter was chosen by Christ to be His authority on earth after He was gone. Again, all of Christianity believed this until the last 500 years when MAN taught it to mean something else to justify not being part of Christ’s Church as to further their own man-made teachings.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that will never make it Truth. You have never been taught the fullness of the Truth, just parts of it. Read the ECF’s. Reading just a few of them alone, will help you realize what the earliest Church taught then, what the earliest Christians believed then. What you are stating now, is your own beliefs, which are fallible. If you didn’t get them from Apostolic Succession, then you got them from men who separated themselves from Christ’s Church to teach their own error.

 

[JRKH]

JKRH: Jesus is also my King, but God is not his vicar, because God is my Holy Father, not the pope:thumbsupMatthew 23:9).The vicar of Christ, if we must call it that is the Holy Spirit(John 14:16-18) who is available to us all(yes, it is possible to be led by the Holy Spirit) and not a man! **Vicar means replacement, right? **

No It does NOT mean replacement. Very common Anti-Catholic rhetoric.
If Mayor George is “replaced” by Frank - is FranK a Vicar or is he a mayor.
Mayor George is replaced by Mayor Frank.
A Vicar is one authoraize to Act for another.
From Dictionary. Com
(Roman Catholic Church). an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop.
4. a person who acts in place of another; substitute.
5. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God’s vicar on earth.

The Pope does not replace Christ, He acts for Him as His duly Authorized Representative.

So, that leaves out the pope, as he is a man; whose infallibility is in doubt(at least by non-catholics).

This statement is incorrect when you correctly understand teh term “Vicar”.

And the reason that I used the reference to having faith, is because you are asking us to believe that every MAN, who is now serving in a position of authority(priests, bishops,etc.) is in the apostolic line of succession

I am not asking that you believe anything that you are not convinced of. I can only place before you the logic of the situation. Only the Holy Spirit can open your heart to belief.

I believe that God can empower any man to lead His flock, even the pope! But I in good conscience, can not and will not call him holy father, nor will I accept his authority, as the spokesperson for all Christians(just catholics).Was Peter the first pope? Hard to tell;

All I ask is that you keep an open mind and explore the words of those who lived at and right after the time of the Apostles. Please just read some of the Early Church Fathers. Don’t take my word for it.

but I know one thing for sure; it is possible to have a personal relationship with the King, as I do, and have had for almost 42 years!

Praise God for that. I too have a personal relationship with my King. I also respect His Church and those He has placed over me.

Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on things that have become sticking points, like the infallibility of the pope, whether or not confession to a priest is mandatory, necessary, praying through Mary and the saints, etc, and concentrate on advancing the Kingdom!

You may be right at the present time.
Of course in order to do this we must ignore Christ’s prayer that we be united, AND that we submit such issues to “The Church” for resolution. So in order for you to "agree to disagree, you must disobey Chirst’s clear commands as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

I know where the ancient and Apostolic Church is and can do this - “Tell it to the Church”
You cannot because others have convinced you that “Church” means “All the Faithful” and have stripped the word of any authoritative meaning. The result of this, as you yourself lamented of earlier is the ever increasing number of splits in the Protestant world of SS and Personal interpretation.

I realize that you need time to digest all that you have read here and that is fine. Just please recognize the “newness” of the SS and Protestant theologies, and look into the historical Church *** recorded by the Early Fathers. Then come back and discuss it with the wonerful folks here,
We are not a bunch of automatons in the Catholic Church, but sincere folks who hold our faith based on Prayerful reading of Scripture as well as attentive study of Church teaching. I myself, while no Scholar by any stretch, was brough back home to the Church after many years in the wilderness by the beautiful continuity and Truth of the Church. Once I did, my questions and objections melted away and Scripture made more sense than it ever had before.

Peace
James

 

[1beleevr]

Always for Him: I guess I got confused when he stated that the Holy Father was the King’s vicar, duly appointed by the King! The title of Holy Father, is reserved for One, and only One, the Almighty, Living God!!! How did youse guys come to call the pope by that hallowed name? Did the early Christians call Peter HolyFather, or any of the other apostles? The reason I say “agree to disagree”, is not to condone division among Christians, rather to stem the tide of condemnation on both sides, and hurt feelings! We are all raised differently, and this should not become a club that we use to beat each other into submission, ot acceptance of the other person’s belief system(Romans 14:10-13) “Faith does not dwell in the house of certainty!”

 

[Radical]

Good Question.
70% ??? No you need to do more study.

you are more optimistic than I. I believe that even with study, 70% +/- is as good as it gets in some cases.

99% ??? Maybe you could venture out, but carefully and be willing to listen to others with greater knowledge. This has been my tack. I am sure of Christ in The Church, but I learn so much from others here.

we agree on the wisdom of this approach, but it encounters a problem when those with greater knowledge are not all on one side of the fence…and, of course they are still fallible men

Guidance Leads TO infallible teaching - whether you want to call it a gift or not doesn’t change it.

Surely you believe in the existence of levels of guidance that do not result in infallibility? ….it is just that you believe that the level necessary for infallibility is enjoyed by the RCC. Correct?

You declare the “additions” as uninspired, and yet as soon as “God’s Word”, so carefully preserved and transmitted by the Church, was torn from the Authority of the Church splintering occurred in doctrine that makes the “Babel” confusion pale in comparison,

It depends on where you draw the line. I note that Irenaeus (at Heresies 1.10) in describing the original deposit of faith stated:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

If one accepts Irenaeus’s description and uses it as the measuring stick, then Protestants are not all that splintered as there remains a considerable unity around that original deposit.

So this makes it easy and convenient for you but protestants split on issues such as the real presence and the ordination of homosexuals and still be part of the Body of Christ. These are not trivial details.

Well, if there is no real presence then that matter would be much closer to trivial than you think.

The Holy spirit cannot be inspiring such things. These things are the true “uninspired additions” and definately NOT founded in the early Church.

one can easily see a purely figurative understanding of the Eucharist in Tertullian.

The Church determined the OT and NT books both independently AND based on historical evidence….The reason Clement was not included in the Canon had to do with when it was written. The NT books selected were only those nearest to the actual events and/or attribuated directly to an Apostle. (At least that was part of the criterion.

this sounds very much like a scholastic endeavor as opposed to an inspired action…which I guess is why I feel free to reject certain traditions wrt the canon (ie the RCC’s inclusion of the apocrypha)

So Clement still contains much good teaching.

and so do many of the sermons from protestant preachers….so why give Clement any greater authority?

Interestnig that you mention the “Seat of Moses” because we all know how Jesus felt about the behavior of the Pharasees. Yet look at what he tells his own disciples:
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)

It is indeed an interesting passage. Not only do we know how Christ felt about the behavior of the Pharisees, but we also know that Christ declared that their teaching was in error (later in chapter 23 and elsewhere)

So Here Jesus is telling the people to trust the teachings of these “fallible men”, even if their actions are sinful, and even though they placed a yoke upon the children of God.

I see where Jesus instructed obedience…but not where he instructed trust, particularly when he went on to point out error.

Will not the Good and Just Master be merciful to those servants who remain loyal to the king and his ministers?

When you call the pope the Vicar of Christ I can’t help but note that such a title sounds at odds with what Jesus said at verses 7-12:

they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I can easily see a extension of that teaching which would read, “Nor are you to be called ‘Vicar,’ for you have one Vicar, the Christ.”

(Oh and by the way - I have found The Yoke of the Church is very light to bear compared to trying to figure it all out on my own.)

I can see how someone would say that, but it doesn’t work for me.

Peace

 

[Radical]

The teaching that the Holy Spirit will guide everyone infallibly is a creation of man in the last 500 years.

who teaches this? No one I know.

Peter was chosen by Christ to be His authority on earth after He was gone. Again, all of Christianity believed this until the last 500 years when MAN taught it to mean something else to justify not being part of Christ’s Church as to further their own man-made teachings.

all of Christianity? Please provide the citations from ante-nicean fathers that prove/establish this universal belief that you claim (and that it was somehow extended to a string of successors). Paul didn’t seem to realize that he needed to submit to whatever Peter taught.

Read the ECF’s. Reading just a few of them alone, will help you realize what the earliest Church taught then, what the earliest Christians believed then.

Great! Give me those few ante-nicean fathers that taught that “giving Peter the keys to the kingdom” meant that he possessed the supreme infallible authority that is now claimed for the Pope.

 

[MrS]

Great! Give me those few ante-nicean fathers that taught that “giving Peter the keys to the kingdom” meant that he possessed the supreme infallible authority that is now claimed for the Pope.

None of them did.

And you make it clear that you have no idea what infallibilty means with regard to the Catholic Church Magisterium.

.

 

[Radical]

None of them did.

And you make it clear that you have no idea what infallibilty means with regard to the Catholic Church Magisterium.

.

Well, I had thought (as indicated previously) that it meant that the official teachings of Catholic Church Magisterium were free of any error. I had thought that was the easy bit…and that the hard bit was compiling the complete list of official teachings. So now, is that I have no idea what infallibilty means with regard to the Catholic Church Magisterium or that you have no idea as to my understanding of “infallibility” or both?

 

[1beleevr]

JRKH: To you, the pope is the vicar of Christ; to me another man of God! For the better part of my adult life(including my walk with Christ) I have honestly had an indifferent view of the pope I mean, I would see him on TV, but really had no feelings one way or the other! Don’t get me wrong; even though I don’t agree with him, or accept that he has any authority over me, I do respect him, and if I met him, would shake his hand! That’s what cool about respect; you can respect someone in a position of authority, without agreeing with them Before He left this earth, Jesus told US, that the Father would be sending us an Advocate, who was, the pope? No, it was…drum roll please, the Holy Spirit! And yes I believe it is possible to be led and directed by the Holy Spirit Hey, I know what the title of this thread is, but what if we "flipped the script, and asked catholics,"how can you be sure…? I mean without the same (sometimes ad nauseum) answers, you know, the one church, founded circa 33 A.D, read the ECF’s, if you read Matthew 16:18, etc,. I mean, for example, do you really believe that James 5:16, is justification for confessing to a priest? I still believe that only God forgives sins! And the “effectual fervent prayers of a righteous man”, well, gosh that could be any Christian or prayer warrior! And I really like Peter’s message in 1 Peter 1:25:thumbsup:One more thing about James 5:16; I have sharedconfessed and repented sins with other believers; and it is very uplifting and cleansing.

 

[JRKH]

you are more optimistic than I. I believe that even with study, 70% +/- is as good as it gets in some cases.

Keep Studying and praying.

we agree on the wisdom of this approach, but it encounters a problem when those with greater knowledge are not all on one side of the fence…and, of course they are still fallible men

You are right and I do not dengrate someone simply because they happen to not be catholic. Looking at the Truths as we see them and seeing the various “diffreences” among good men has caused me to try to look at the core values and then work out from there. This helps to keep me grounded and not get sidetracked by details. I’m really a pretty simple Christian.

Surely you believe in the existence of levels of guidance that do not result in infallibility? ….it is just that you believe that the level necessary for infallibility is enjoyed by the RCC. Correct?

I would accept “levels of guidance” and acurally see in your statement support for the practices of The Church. By binging Ideas out and discussing them, the “level of Guidance” in the group becomes exponentially greater than any individual guidance. (Where 2 or three are gathered…) And when those gathered are Chosen ministers of God’s Holy Church, dedicated to His teachings, the Guidance is great indeed.

It depends on where you draw the line. I note that Irenaeus (at Heresies 1.10) in describing the original deposit of faith stated:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

If one accepts Irenaeus’s description and uses it as the measuring stick, then Protestants are not all that splintered as there remains a considerable unity around that original deposit.

You are right - Many Protestants are close to Catholics on the core issues. Some are even Identical. This is why any discussion among us Christians will always come back to authority.

Well, if there is no real presence then that matter would be much closer to trivial than you think.

one can easily see a purely figurative understanding of the Eucharist in Tertullian.

One can also easily read a purely literal understanding of the Real Presence in Paul’s Statement about Eating and drinking condemnation on yourself by receiving the Eucharist unworthily.
Let me ask this - Which would be worse for your salvation?
Christ was speaking figuratively - But I err and take him seriously - thereby treating the Eucharist as Christ Himself - reverently - desposing of even the smallest crumb and drop reverntly.
OR
Christ was speaking literally - But I err and think it is not really him - So any left over “bread or juice” is just tossed or dumped.
Just consider teh implication of each.

(Continued)

 

[JRKH]

(Continued from Above)

this sounds very much like a scholastic endeavor as opposed to an inspired action…which I guess is why I feel free to reject certain traditions wrt the canon (ie the RCC’s inclusion of the apocrypha)

Actually it was a combination.
If you accept the Bible’s compilation as an “Inspired” endeavor, then why would you reject the DC’s. If you doubt the “inspiration” of the compilation, why accept the NT as established?

and so do many of the sermons from protestant preachers….so why give Clement any greater authority?

Well there weren’t any “Protestant” preachers around in the 1st century, so if you want to read about the early Church Clement was there.

It is indeed an interesting passage. Not only do we know how Christ felt about the behavior of the Pharisees, but we also know that Christ declared that their teaching was in error (later in chapter 23 and elsewhere)

I see where Jesus instructed obedience…but not where he instructed trust, particularly when he went on to point out error.

And yet he still told his disciples to do as the tell you.
If a teacher leads astray - they have a heavy price to pay.
If a kings official oppresses the Kings subjects he will pay the price
Those who obey are judged rightious.
“To whom much is given - Much is expected…”

When you call the pope the Vicar of Christ I can’t help but note that such a title sounds at odds with what Jesus said at verses 7-12:

they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I can easily see a extension of that teaching which would read, “Nor are you to be called ‘Vicar,’ for you have one Vicar, the Christ.”

Yes - In some ways I wish that things weren’t so full of Pomp surrounding the Pope. But I would ask you to consider how humble our recent popes have been. They didn’t seek the title. They didn’t want the Job. In both JP II and Ben XVI we have men who would much rather be teaching at university. Yet they were called and must sreve. These men are more “prisoners” in these fancy robes and titles than they are “overlords”.
Can you see what I mean?

I can see how someone would say that, but it doesn’t work for me.

Keep Seeking - God will work with and in you.

Peace
James