Protestants listen up

[CWBetts]

What traditions do protestants have. So you are telling me that purgatory is in the Bible. If so where is it. Please back up what you are saying with scripture. God’s Word is the only thing that we need to live the Christian life.

See post #439 for a list of a few traditions. Why don’t you tell me where the Binle is our sole rule of faith. I contend that such a doctrine is unscriptural. Show me that it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Fair enough, on the “tradition” front. Still, a tradition that’s taken to distinguish Christians from non-Christians seems to me ontologically different from one that isn’t. In the former case, you’re trifling with the Faith, and I grant you, some of these Pentecostals might just be doing so. (Still, would it be an improvement if they developed an ecclesiology and assumed the power to declare "tongues=salvation’ a binding dogma upon the faithful?)

Well, the precise nature of the one Church Christ founded, and the senses in which the RCC is its legitimate, uninterrupted, unchallengeable descendant, have been mauled over by better polemicists than I. Still, simply the formulation of the early Christian creeds suggests that some scriptural ideas and doctrines are more central to the faith than others–whether Mary was a virgin and whether a man ought to wear his hair long are controversies of a different order, surely?

On matters of faith and morals, as taught by His Church, do you not recognize that Christ said, “whatsover thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven?” Do you not recognize Christ’s power to keep His promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world? Do you not recognize that Christ said, “And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever?”

God has the power to protect His truth through His Church. He gave this example to multitudes and His disciples.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Yes, I’ve posed several questions, just as you did in response to one of my questions. Where in scriptures did Christ teach if you do not agree with His Church, or men of His Church, it was acceptable to leave His Church and start another one to make improvements one deemed necessary according to their private interpretation?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

These are practices not found in the Bible practiced by Protestants, the are traditions. And the simple fact is there is no Tradition in the Catholic Church that runs counter to the Bible.

Although some of your examples seems too ephemeral to call “traditions,” I’ll concede the point, far as it goes. Still, most Protestants don’t imagine that belief or disbelief in such traditions are a bar to salvation or to being a Christian in good standing. (And some foamy sectarian exception of dubious orthodoxy does not a refutation make–don’t get me started skimming the Net for embarrassing Catholics to counter with!)

And it’s a “simple fact” that no Catholic tradition runs counter to the Bible? Good God, man, why didn’t you just SAY SO? Now we can all go home. Seriously, though, I think you might have mixed up “simple fact” with “past, present, and future topic of careful debate and discussion among serious people with serious arguments and counter-arguments.”

 

[CWBetts]

Although some of your examples seems too ephemeral to call “traditions,” I’ll concede the point, far as it goes. Still, most Protestants don’t imagine that belief or disbelief in such traditions are a bar to salvation or to being a Christian in good standing. (And some foamy sectarian exception of dubious orthodoxy does not a refutation make–don’t get me started skimming the Net for embarrassing Catholics to counter with!)

And it’s a “simple fact” that no Catholic tradition runs counter to the Bible? Good God, man, why didn’t you just SAY SO? Now we can all go home. Seriously, though, I think you might have mixed up “simple fact” with “past, present, and future topic of careful debate and discussion among serious people with serious arguments and counter-arguments.”

Oh, my bad! So which tradition is it that runs counter to the Bible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Although some of your examples seems too ephemeral to call “traditions,” I’ll concede the point, far as it goes. Still, most Protestants don’t imagine that belief or disbelief in such traditions are a bar to salvation or to being a Christian in good standing. (And some foamy sectarian exception of dubious orthodoxy does not a refutation make–don’t get me started skimming the Net for embarrassing Catholics to counter with!)

And it’s a “simple fact” that no Catholic tradition runs counter to the Bible? Good God, man, why didn’t you just SAY SO? Now we can all go home. Seriously, though, I think you might have mixed up “simple fact” with “past, present, and future topic of careful debate and discussion among serious people with serious arguments and counter-arguments.”

Catholic traditions come from a combination of oral tradition and scriptures. A scriptural example can be provided for Catholic teachings/doctrines. The problem lies with interpretation. Protestants, for some reason, cannot accept that a Catholic tradition comes from scriptures, even if they do not agree with the interpretation.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

On matters of faith and morals, as taught by His Church, do you not recognize that Christ said, “whatsover thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven?” Do you not recognize Christ’s power to keep His promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world? Do you not recognize that Christ said, “And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever?”

God has the power to protect His truth through His Church. He gave this example to multitudes and His disciples.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Yes, I’ve posed several questions, just as you did in response to one of my questions. Where in scriptures did Christ teach if you do not agree with His Church, or men of His Church, it was acceptable to leave His Church and start another one to make improvements one deemed necessary according to their private interpretation?

Well, this debate has gone on for some centuries now, and I assume you’re familiar with how the next step goes: if the Catholic Church is precisely what she claims to be, your argument’s a darned good one. If not, it’s white noise. The whole issue is whether or not when speaking of His church, Christ had in mind an actual, physical, temporal bureaucracy with staffing, properties, uniforms, nametags, outlet locations, and His exclusive franchise. If so, the question is equally how solid and indisputable said franchise’s transmission has been, particularly through its initial centuries. I’m trying to answer these questions for myself, and might come to believe that the Catholic stance on them is correct. But to take the answers as given when talking to Protestants … that’s begging the question, you know.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, this debate has gone on for some centuries now, and I assume you’re familiar with how the next step goes: if the Catholic Church is precisely what she claims to be, your argument’s a darned good one. If not, it’s white noise. The whole issue is whether or not when speaking of His church, Christ had in mind an actual, physical, temporal bureaucracy with staffing, properties, uniforms, nametags, outlet locations, and His exclusive franchise. If so, the question is equally how solid and indisputable said franchise’s transmission has been, particularly through its initial centuries. I’m trying to answer these questions for myself, and might come to believe that the Catholic stance on them is correct. But to take the answers as given when talking to Protestants … that’s begging the question, you know.

**Luk 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.**

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

**Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that, by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

2Ti 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.**

The Church was to be a body of believers and visible, with apostolic succession. How could the letters and epistles of the Bible have been sent to an invisible Church?

 

[sambos671]

What traditions do protestants have. So you are telling me that purgatory is in the Bible. If so where is it. Please back up what you are saying with scripture. God’s Word is the only thing that we need to live the Christian life.

Well first you have to accept what is scripture. If you just hold to the Tanakh you would be doing yourself a disservice. The ECF and the Apostles used the LXX which included this verse from Maccabees -

2 Macc 12:45 " It was a holy pious thought. Therefore he made attonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sins

coupled with this parable Mt 18:32-34

You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?" and in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt

A commentator said this

What was jesus talking about? Scripture clearly teaches "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus: (Romans 8:1). And yet Our Lord Himself gives the example of a man who had been forgiven, afterwards acted unjustly, and finally was handed over to repay all that he owed. - Curtis Martin Catholic For a Reason P 298

And Martin also asks this perceptive question regarding Mt 12:31-32

If this sin cannot be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come, some sins might be able to be forgiven in the age to come.

And 1 Cor3:11-15 is writen specifically to believers. And we haven’t even gotten to the consept of fire yet. Where by every time God affirms his covenant with us his presence is displayed in fire. The burning firebrand with Abraham between the divided cow; the burning bush with Moses; the pillar of fire at night for the 40 years in the desert; the consuming fire that devoured the altar of Elijah; The giving of the Holy Spirit in the tongues of fire on Pentecost. Just to name a few.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Catholic traditions come from a combination of oral tradition and scriptures. A scriptural example can be provided for Catholic teachings/doctrines. The problem lies with interpretation. Protestants, for some reason, cannot accept that a Catholic tradition comes from scriptures, even if they do not agree with the interpretation.

Oh, don’t sell Protestants short. Most Catholic traditions I can think of can be derived from the Bible; Now, I think many Cs & Ps might differ about how tenuous a Biblical derivation may be before it starts to look weak, or like some kind of post-hoc justification.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The Church was to be a body of believers and visible. How could the letters and epistles of the Bible have been sent to an invisible Church?

By an invisible mailman–DUN DUN DUUNNNNNN! Seriously, though, even Protestant churches qualify as a “visible body of believers.” I appreciate the verses, but am not sure that any of them, or their sum, amounts to an argument for Catholic ecclesiology.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, don’t sell Protestants short. Most Catholic traditions I can think of can be derived from the Bible; Now, I think many Cs & Ps might differ about how tenuous a Biblical derivation may be before it starts to look weak, or like some kind of post-hoc justification.

The biggest difference I see between Catholic and Protestant interpretation of scriptures is the authority to help with interpretations. Catholic interpretation is as old as the Church, as taught by the Apostles and the early Church fathers. Private interpretation came through the Protestant reformation and certainly has appearances of some interpretations justifying their actions. Submitting to the authority of Church, in interpretations, is fitting one’s theology to scriptures and Church teachings. Private interpretation, for the justification of one’s actions, is fitting scriptures to their theology. Which one appears to be serving God? Which one is seemingly serving one’s self?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

By an invisible mailman–DUN DUN DUUNNNNNN! Seriously, though, even Protestant churches qualify as a “visible body of believers.” I appreciate the verses, but am not sure that any of them, or their sum, amounts to an argument for Catholic ecclesiology.

Yes, Protestant denominations have become quite visible, over the past 500 years, some much less than that.

The Catholic Church has been visibly around for 2000+ years. History tells us that the Protestant Church have roots back to the Catholic Church, yet some Protestants are so anti-Catholic they will deny that and say the Church has always been an invisible body of believers. Just like the invisible Church, the supporting sources for such a claim is invisible…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Scriptures, directly and by inference, tell us the Church was meant to be one, in full accord and of one mind and judgment, and that includes doctrinal teachings. Nowhere does scripture tell us to be of one accord on “essentials”.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yes, Protestant denominations have become quite visible, over the past 500 years, some much less than that.

The Catholic Church has been visibly around for 2000+ years. History tells us that the Protestant Church have roots back to the Catholic Church, yet some Protestants are so anti-Catholic they will deny that and say the Church has always been an invisible body of believers. Just like the invisible Church, the supporting sources for such a claim is invisible…

Well, Luther’s theses are older than the Council of Trent–does that mean that the latter has less standing? Or, to use more of an apples/applpes comparison, when it comes to chronology AND the root/offshoot hierarchy, Judaism’s got us both beat: meet you at the synagogue?

And I think that many Catholics would acknowledge that organizationally they’re a kind of offshoot of pentarchical Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t automatically make the latter’s doctrinal claims superior.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, Luther’s theses are older than the Council of Trent–does that mean that the latter has less standing? Or, to use more of an apples/applpes comparison, when it comes to chronology AND the root/offshoot hierarchy, Judaism’s got us both beat: meet you at the synagogue?

And I think that many Catholics would acknowledge that organizationally they’re a kind of offshoot of pentarchical Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t automatically make the latter’s doctrinal claims superior.

Luther’s theses came from him, the Council of Trent came from the Church.

You can’t include Judaism, unless you mean the new Israel, which is the Church or you deny the new and everlasting covenant, as well as scriptures.

**Col 3:11 Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all. **

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For, finding fault with them, he saith: Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Catholic, Orthodox, we’re talking about Catholic doctrines…

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Scriptures, directly and by inference, tell us the Church was meant to be one, in full accord and of one mind and judgment, and that includes doctrinal teachings. Nowhere does scripture tell us to be of one accord on “essentials”.

So there’s no idea or area, then, on which any two Catholics are permitted to differ? Or is there a distinction between propositions that are “doctrinal teachings” and those that aren’t? If so, that’s little different from Protestants’ stance that some beliefs are essential and some aren’t.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Luther’s theses came from him, the Council of Trent came from the Church.

You can’t include Judaism, unless you mean the new Israel, which is the Church or you deny the new and everlasting covenant, as well as scriptures.

Catholic, Orthodox, we’re talking about Catholic doctrines…

Ah, so there are things more relevant than chronology and source/offshoot relationships. That’s all I was trying to say.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So there’s no idea or area, then, on which any two Catholics are permitted to differ? Or is there a distinction between propositions that are “doctrinal teachings” and those that aren’t? If so, that’s little different from Protestants’ stance that some beliefs are essential and some aren’t.

Outside of dogma, there are many things Catholics may disagree on. When it comes to doctrines/teachings of the Church, a Catholic is obedient to Church, just as they are obedient to God. Is that to say there are no Catholics in error? No, there most certainly are, but we all accept our infallibility, or imperfections as men. The difference, in my opinion, is that they still turn to the Church Christ built and do not go off and start a new Church in an attempt to improve what Christ built.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ah, so there are things more relevant than chronology and source/offshoot relationships. That’s all I was trying to say.

Christ built the Church and promised a new and everlasting covenant. chronology and offshoot relationships were not something He addressed as being important or to be done. As I’ve asked several times, where in scriptures does Christ tell us if we disagree with the authority of His Church, we should go and start a new Church? It’s just not there, just as the teaching of sola scriptura or the teaching of private interpretation is not there.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Outside of dogma, there are many things Catholics may disagree on. When it comes to doctrines/teachings of the Church, a Catholic is obedient to Church, just as they are obedient to God. Is that to say there are no Catholics in error? No, there most certainly are, but we all accept our infallibility, or imperfections as men. The difference, in my opinion, is that they still turn to the Church Christ built and do not go off and start a new Church in an attempt to improve what Christ built.

Well, if it makes you feel better, Prodigal Son, I think that many Protestants have genuine misgivings that the Catholic Church is precisely the one Christ built, and do not reject her or her teachings out of pride or lack of love. With a few discreditable exceptions, I think they’d embrace her wholeheartedly if they were once persuaded of your premises about her nature. I must return to work, but pray for us if you get a chance–if you’re right, then God willing our minds will change; if you’re wrong … well prayer’s good for a man! God bless.