Protestants: If it's not mentioned in Scripture, is your fall-back position that it's prohibited, or permissible? And how do you know?

[PRmerger]

Since I was talking hypothetically, let me just continue. I probably should have said, if my communion changed its teaching in this way. They haven’t, which is what makes it hypothetical. So, for example, if by some strange happening the CC began to toy with the idea of a symbolic Eucharist, would you submit to that? I certainly hope not. I wouldn’t if my Church did.

Since this is indeed a hypothetical, I will play.

As I believe that “he who hears you hears me” reflects the Church (She is, after all, the one who preserved those words of Christ), then, if the Church proclaimed that the Eucharist is symbolic, I would do what I would do if Jesus Himself came before me and said the Eucharist is symbolic.

That is, I would believe it.

After all, really, the only real reason I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is because the Church declares it to be so. Reason, science, Greek metaphysics were certainly not enough to convince me!

Faith will tell us Christ is present, when our human senses fail.

So if the Church (read: Jesus) proclaimed that the Eucharist is symbolic, I’d say, “Yes, Lord! I dare not disagree with you!”

 

[PRmerger]

Thus, we have church shopping, church-splitting, or the “I don’t need no stinkin’ church because all I need is the Bible and me” paradigm.

And that’s entirely contrary to Lutheranism.

I understand that. But if Scripture is your final authority, and one disagrees with a church’s profession, then, by your own paradigm, it demands that one must church shop/church split, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Let me ask you a question;
Wouldn’t you say that it is your hope that all n-C’s would conform their minds to the teaching of the CC? If so, were I to become Catholic, would that be Church-hopping? Or would you consider a good decision on my part.

I think this is a fair question, and I get your point.

Yes, I would hope that all n-Cs would conform their minds to the teachings of the CC, and in one sense it would be church shopping.

But I would hope that you would conform your mind to the teaching of the CC because you see it as speaking for Christ–and thus, when Christ speaks, you humbly submit. Not because you find that the CC has agreed with all of your own understandings of Scripture.

You should come to the CC because you have conformed your beliefs to the Church, not because the Church reflects all of your beliefs.

I ask this because, while not mentioned in my hypothetical, perhaps only one or two communions would I consider - Catholic, and perhaps a conservative Anglican setting.

Jon

What about the Orthodox? You always seem to bring them up in your *apologia. *

 

[JonNC]

I think this is a fair question, and I get your point.

Yes, I would hope that all n-Cs would conform their minds to the teachings of the CC, and in one sense it would be church shopping.

But I would hope that you would conform your mind to the teaching of the CC because you see it as speaking for Christ–and thus, when Christ speaks, you humbly submit. Not because you find that the CC has agreed with all of your own understandings of Scripture.

You should come to the CC because you have conformed your beliefs to the Church, not because the Church reflects all of your beliefs.

What about the Orthodox? You always seem to bring them up in your *apologia. *

Yes, should have mentioned that. Guess I was just thinking western.

Jon

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

Let me ask you a question;
Wouldn’t you say that it is your hope that all n-C’s would conform their minds to the teaching of the CC? If so, were I to become Catholic, would that be Church-hopping? Or would you consider a good decision on my part. I ask this because, while not mentioned in my hypothetical, perhaps only one or two communions would I consider - Catholic, and perhaps a conservative Anglican setting.

Jon

This question is very intriguing. Looking back, this is exactly what I was considering when I abandoned atheism/agnosticism a couple of years ago. At first, I shopped religions and quickly came to the conclusion that Christianity was the true religion. Then I shopped denominations and it occurred to me that I was looking at all of them as being on par with each other.

This didn’t work for me because I knew there was only one objective truth. Jesus established His Church and that Church established the canon of scripture. For me it became an easy choice and this is what actually went through my head: if I’m going to commit to Christianity, why wouldn’t I go OEM (I’m into cars, this means ‘original equipment manufacturer’ for those who don’t know)? Everything else is aftermarket IMHO and if the original Church established by Christ was good enough for Him, then it was good enough for me.

So the “shopping around” aspect turned into really a choice of one “vehicle” with everything else being nothing more than “accessories and body kits” meant to alter the appearance of the one available vehicle to match personal taste.

I see where someone of a different faith tradition would hold on so dearly to what they believe because they see it as being in alignment with what Christ believes, and it probably is for the most part. Coming from the perspective of complete and unbiased non-belief, I didn’t have the issue of belief in a particular flavor of Christianity and this is what made it easier for me to make an objective choice.

I suppose the question for me at this point is this: As a function of free will has it boiled down to a human being conforming their mind to the Church as opposed to one conforming the Church to their mind and is this one of the great divides between Catholicism (including the Eastern Churches) and Protestantism? If a Protestant says they are willing to conform their minds to their Church then they must be open to receiving the truth from outside their own opinions. How much more true then is Magisterium backed by Apostolic authority than that of a Church without it?

To answer your questions, Jon, I would say:

1. yes, because the Catholic Church is the True Church.
2. no, because I see joining the Catholic Church as a return to the origianl intended Church that Christ established for all mankind. Shopping between Protestant Churches, IMHO, is akin to changing rims or getting a new paint job on an already altered version of the original.
3. yes, it would be a good decision because it demonstrates obedience to Christ and a rejection of continued rebellion, however slight that rebellion may be. Once we see the truth and acknowledge it as truth we are bound by it.

God bless!

 

[JonNC]

=Jason L Barnes;8045306]This question is very intriguing. Looking back, this is exactly what I was considering when I abandoned atheism/agnosticism a couple of years ago. At first, I shopped religions and quickly came to the conclusion that Christianity was the true religion. Then I shopped denominations and it occurred to me that I was looking at all of them as being on par with each other.

This didn’t work for me because I knew there was only one objective truth. Jesus established His Church and that Church established the canon of scripture. For me it became an easy choice and this is what actually went through my head: if I’m going to commit to Christianity, why wouldn’t I go OEM (I’m into cars, this means ‘original equipment manufacturer’ for those who don’t know)? Everything else is aftermarket IMHO and if the original Church established by Christ was good enough for Him, then it was good enough for me.

So the “shopping around” aspect turned into really a choice of one “vehicle” with everything else being nothing more than “accessories and body kits” meant to alter the appearance of the one available vehicle to match personal taste.

I see where someone of a different faith tradition would hold on so dearly to what they believe because they see it as being in alignment with what Christ believes, and it probably is for the most part. Coming from the perspective of complete and unbiased non-belief, I didn’t have the issue of belief in a particular flavor of Christianity and this is what made it easier for me to make an objective choice.

I suppose the question for me at this point is this: As a function of free will has it boiled down to a human being conforming their mind to the Church as opposed to one conforming the Church to their mind and is this one of the great divides between Catholicism (including the Eastern Churches) and Protestantism? If a Protestant says they are willing to conform their minds to their Church then they must be open to receiving the truth from outside their own opinions. How much more true then is Magisterium backed by Apostolic authority than that of a Church without it?

First, I give thanks to God that He brought you to the one true faith, that is our common faith in the Triune God. Your points are well taken. One question; when you say including the Eastern Churches, are you including those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Staying on the cars metaphor, I take it you assumed the OEM was “Ford”, not “Chevy” (or vise versa).

To answer your questions, Jon, I would say:

1. yes, because the Catholic Church is the True Church.
2. no, because I see joining the Catholic Church as a return to the origianl intended Church that Christ established for all mankind. Shopping between Protestant Churches, IMHO, is akin to changing rims or getting a new paint job on an already altered version of the original.
3. yes, it would be a good decision because it demonstrates obedience to Christ and a rejection of continued rebellion, however slight that rebellion may be. Once we see the truth and acknowledge it as truth we are bound by it.

I appreciate your testimony.

Jon

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

First, I give thanks to God that He brought you to the one true faith, that is our common faith in the Triune God. Your points are well taken. One question; when you say including the Eastern Churches, are you including those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Staying on the cars metaphor, I take it you assumed the OEM was “Ford”, not “Chevy” (or vise versa).

I appreciate your testimony.

Jon

Thank you Jon :hug1:

I suppose the reason I included the Eastern Churches with Rome is because I can’t see the Schism as being greater than the division that resulted from the Reformation. Another reason is the hope I have for unity beginning with the Eastern Churches because of how close we already are in terms of apostolic succession and dogma. I pray our reunification acts as a catalyst for reuinification with the rest of our separated brethren.

As for OEM being Ford or Chevy? that’s way too controversial for this site!

 

[JonNC]

Thank you Jon :hug1:

I suppose the reason I included the Eastern Churches with Rome is because I can’t see the Schism as being greater than the division that resulted from the Reformation. Another reason is the hope I have for unity beginning with the Eastern Churches because of how close we already are in terms of apostolic succession and dogma. I pray our reunification acts as a catalyst for reuinification with the rest of our separated brethren.

As for OEM being Ford or Chevy? that’s way too controversial for this site!

OK, lol, well said. I pray for the unity of all, as well, and I agree that reconciliation between Rome and the east would certainly be a catylist.

Jon

 

[amber_lux]

What else is your pastor supposed to preach on?.. the latest NYTimes #1 bestseller on self-help?

You haven’t watched Joel Osteen.

 

[Nicea325]

The difference is that Protestants generally use the Scriptures as the highest level of appeal, or as the norm, when there is a tough call. This makes sense if you consider that at the time of the Reformation, the Reformers felt that the Catholic Church was defending incorrect teachings by appealing to Tradition. So while they still allowed for a tradition of how to understand Scripture and the teaching of the Church more generally, they decided that all claims to Tradition had to be in harmony with Scripture.

Do you have an example where the church was defending incorrect teachings by appealing to Tradition? I noticed you used Tradition with an upper case;hence meaning it was Apostolic in origin.

Thanks