Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[Peter_J]

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

Certainly. And, for that matter, Patriarchs of Constantinople, Patriarchs of Alexandria, Patriarchs of Antioch, etc etc etc.

 

[goout]

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

Direct and explicit abandonment of your loved one, savior, and Lord of the Universe is difficult to match in the hierarchy of evils. Notice in this painting he cannot look The Virgin in the face.
Still, Christ laid his hands on him, and call him Rock, by name.

 

[goout]

HI g,

Quickl,y I can only give you an example. Peter and the apostles chose a replacement for Judas, Matthias. Jesus appointed Saul of Tarsus…

Generally speaking, whom God has chosen as leader(s) becomes apparent, even to the church , and the church then promotes them. It is rarer I think for the “office” to make the
man.

Blessings

Don’t know what you mean by an office making a man. That is not a Catholic thing.

An office is nothing new with the Papacy. “Prophet” is an office for instance, going back to the OT.

Christ embodies the offices of priest, prophet, and king. The offices do not make Christ who he is, or course. But the offices exist, and they are personal.

The offices are real, because Christ is incarnate. If Christ is not incarnate, then the concept of office and institution can be thrown out the window. You can’t throw them out without running afoul of the central Christian reality of incarnation.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

I am not saying the CC says they appoint popes infallibly. I am saying that is how it can be interpreted from the "outside " looking in (from a P and perhaps O view).

benhur,

that’s why I’m glad we’re having this discussion.
bh:

That is, would the CC say that the pope is not whom God intended for head leader at any given point in time ? That is, is God bound by what the CC chooses for pope over all Christendom, that the "office’’ binds Him to honor it, whereby there can be no real error of consequence, and no other to follow at any given time ( a type of infallibility) ?

Blessings

Given the definition the Church gives for papal infallibility, #[234 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14331849&postcount=234) , all one has to do then who disagrees with it, is test it. There have been 266 popes from Peter. There have been a handful of bad popes. They are named so there is no mystery who they are. There have been false claimants to the papacy, but only one man can be pope at a time. Those false claimants have also been identified, so again there is no mystery who they are.

So here’s the test.

Find one pope out of 266, who broke the definition of infallibility defined by the Church. IOW, find the pope who declared a doctrine / dogma on faith or morals, that the whole Church must believe, and later that doctrine/dogma was found to be false and/or rescinded.

I can save you the work in advance, none qualify. But I don’t want you to take my word for it. You can imagine, how many have tried to prove that wrong. And they failed

Jesus keeps His promises

As an aside, definitionally, these terms need to be understood as well

• Disciplines aren’t doctrines or dogmas. They can change or even be eliminatedhttp://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline
• Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline?
• Doctrines develop but don’t get later proven wrong or get rescinded
• Dogmas are set
• Can Dogma Develop?
• What is the difference between doctrine and dogma? .

 

[benhur]

]Don’t know what you mean by an office making a man. That is not a Catholic thing.

Hi g,

Agree I did not express myself very well. I think I was trying to say that that the papal office does not necessarily make the holder something that he is not. That indeed if another is gifted with more leadership in message, for that moment in history, that person may be God’s choice and vehicle, more than that pope.

An office is nothing new with the Papacy. “Prophet” is an office for instance, going back to the OT.

Of course there are offices. Just debating one office in particular. There have always been prophets, and the beauty is that there are more than one at the same time, and that indeed there even may be an institutional “school” for them. As we know, sometimes the school is where God finds His head prophet, but sometimes not. It is true God may bring one prophet to the ‘top’’, or grace him to be "the’ prophet for that moment in time. The Jews would never assume to do that for God. Each prophet was to stand on his own “prophecy” , and let the hearer beware.

The offices are real, because Christ is incarnate. If Christ is not incarnate, then the concept of office and institution can be thrown out the window. You can’t throw them out without running afoul of the central Christian reality of incarnation.

Yes, and one could say that Christ was crucified and paid our ransom. Without this all is vain. And one could say Christ is risen, even ascended. Without this all is vain. So yes, the Incarnation is before this. Christ legitimizes all true power of all institutions and all offices, from the garden of Eden to the new heaven and earth to come.

Again, the question is does He legitimize the CC papacy today.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur,

that’s why I’m glad we’re having this discussion.

Given the definition the Church gives for papal infallibility, #[234 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14331849&postcount=234) , all one has to do then who disagrees with it, is test it. There have been 266 popes from Peter. There have been a handful of bad popes. They are named so there is no mystery who they are. There have been false claimants to the papacy, but only one man can be pope at a time. Those false claimants have also been identified, so again there is no mystery who they are.

So here’s the test.

Find one pope out of 266, who broke the definition of infallibility defined by the Church. IOW, find the pope who declared a doctrine / dogma on faith or morals, that the whole Church must believe, and later that doctrine/dogma was found to be false and/or rescinded.

I can save you the work in advance, none qualify. But I don’t want you to take my word for it. You can imagine, how many have tried to prove that wrong. And they failed

Jesus keeps His promises

As an aside, definitionally, these terms need to be understood as well

• Disciplines aren’t doctrines or dogmas. They can change or even be eliminatedhttp://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline
• Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline?
• Doctrines develop but don’t get later proven wrong or get rescinded
• Dogmas are set
• Can Dogma Develop?
• What is the difference between doctrine and dogma? .

Hi steve,

Again , not discussing papal infallibility as commonly understood. I mean not all popes teach anything new, or very few speak x cathedra. I think last time was 1950 (Assumption of Mary), and then around 1870 (IC) . So quite a few popes have been “silent”, and therefore tough to use that as criteria for saying such a pope is above all other leadership voices in Christendom during their time.

Another words, not sure if the popes declared anything new as infallible during times of Savonarola, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss or Luther. Were the latter voices meant to “lead”, to “go before, to rule the day”, as Peter (or Paul, or the apostles and their first council) was for His day ?

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi steve,

Again , not discussing papal infallibility as commonly understood. I mean not all popes teach anything new, or very few speak x cathedra. I think last time was 1950 (Assumption of Mary), and then around 1870 (IC) . So quite a few popes have been “silent”, and therefore tough to use that as criteria for saying such a pope is above all other leadership voices in Christendom during their time.

Another words, not sure if the popes declared anything new as infallible during times of Savonarola, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss or Luther. Were the latter voices meant to “lead”, to “go before, to rule the day”, as Peter (or Paul, or the apostles and their first council) was for His day ?

Blessings

Infallibility certainly does not mean “new”. It’s a formal affirmation of what has always been. It’s actually the opposite of new.

 

[goout]

Agree I did not express myself very well. I think I was trying to say that that the papal office does not necessarily make the holder something that he is not. That indeed if another is gifted with more leadership in message, for that moment in history, that person may be God’s choice and vehicle, more than that pope.

What is the office? How do you understand that?
What office(s) do you recognize?

I hear you compartmentalizing the office from the action of Christ through the Church.
(Laying on of hands, breath, anointing, liturgical action etc…)

So what does “office” even mean to you?

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Again , not discussing papal infallibility as commonly understood.

benhur,

I was merely addressing the issue of infallibility, and what you disagreed with #234
I was pointing out, not to worry, what you disagree with, the Church doesn’t teach
bh:

I mean not all popes teach anything new, or very few speak x cathedra. I think last time was 1950 (Assumption of Mary), and then around 1870 (IC) . So quite a few popes have been “silent”, and therefore tough to use that as criteria for saying such a pope is above all other leadership voices in Christendom during their time.

let’s look at another example to see if we have common ground.

The canon of scripture, 73 books, each book named, was in an official sense closed at the council of Trent held between 1545 and 1563. Does that mean that those 73 books weren’t believed to be the canon of scripture before the Council of Trent defined and closed the canon?

If Protestants were asked to defend the canon, how would they do it? Luther, the founder of Protestantism, didn’t believe that canon. He removed 7 books from his canon. And those 7 books are still missing in Protestant bibles today. Who gave him such authority? NO ONE! If 7 books are in question for their validity and inspiration, so are the other 66 books. Who are Protestants going to rely on for their evidence for what they believe?

Point being, popes and councils always weigh in on teaching definitively, truths of the faith when truth is challenged, or when a truth needs proclaiming. By definition truth can’t be made up. It’s true or it is not. Jesus promised that in HIS Church, truth prevails. After all, the Church, as in the “Catholic Church” with Peter at the helm. is "the pillar and foundation of truth "
bh:

Another words, not sure if the popes declared anything new as infallible during times of Savonarola, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss or Luther. Were the latter voices meant to “lead”, to “go before, to rule the day”, as Peter (or Paul, or the apostles and their first council) was for His day ?

Blessings

I’m not sure I follow. The Catholic Church is there for 2000 yrs. Has dealt with every challenge.

 

[benhur]

Infallibility certainly does not mean “new”. It’s a formal affirmation of what has always been. It’s actually the opposite of new.

Hi rc,

I think I meant the "official’’ ex cathedra declaration is new, in that it has not been declared infallible and to be believed in obedience before. So the assumption and IC were around for centuries even debated amongst Catholic . Finally, the pope spoke out infallibly to settle the old matter, once and for all.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur,

I was merely addressing the issue of infallibility, and what you disagreed with #234
I was pointing out, not to worry, what you disagree with, the Church doesn’t teach

Hi steve,

understand thank you.

Then she can appoint fallibly ? ( for she does not teach that she appoints infallibly).

Who are Protestants going to rely on for their evidence for what they believe?

Evidence and authority to declare are two different things . We pretty much both have the same evidences for our beliefs.

Jesus promised that in HIS Church, truth prevails.

yes, sooner or later.

After all, the Church, as in the “Catholic Church” with Peter at the helm. is "the pillar and foundation of truth "

Well that is what is being discussed. Just what is the church, for writ says nothing of “Catholic”, nor is it explicit on a leader after the likes of Peter’s role.

I’m not sure I follow. The Catholic Church is there for 2000 yrs. Has dealt with every challenge.

That is the question none the less…has the church dealt wrongly in discerning God’s appointed "leader’’, or one sent to “go before”, even "rule’ on a matter ( ἡγούμενος) ? Has she percieved some correction from “messengers” as heretical “challenges” ?

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

I think I meant the "official’’ ex cathedra declaration is new, in that it has not been declared infallible and to be believed in obedience before. So the assumption and IC were around for centuries even debated amongst Catholic . Finally, the pope spoke out infallibly to settle the old matter, once and for all.

Blessings

Thanks for that.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

understand thank you.

Then she can appoint fallibly ? ( for she does not teach that she appoints infallibly).

benhur, been away for a few days.

Re: appointments, that’s true. That particular function you described, is not part of the doctrine of infallibility. So no need to stress out over that.
bh:

Evidence and authority to declare are two different things .

Yet they should go together…agreed?
bh:

We pretty much both have the same evidences for our beliefs.

Yet evidence properly identified as evidence, should not lead anyone to take or form contradictory conclusions

And should such disagreements occur, there needs to be a valid authority to declare a decision on such a disagreement… agreed?
bh:

yes, sooner or later. Well that is what is being discussed. Just what is the church, for ***writ ***says nothing of “Catholic”, nor is it explicit on a leader after the likes of Peter’s role.

Re: ***writ ***says nothing of “Catholic”

what WRIT are you specifically referring to?
bh:

That is the question none the less…has the church dealt wrongly in discerning God’s appointed "leader’’, or one sent to “go before”, even "rule’ on a matter ( ἡγούμενος) ?

To be fair, that’s a bit like asking the rhetorical question, did Jesus screw up when He appointed Judas as an apostle.

Do you see where that goes?
bh:

Has she percieved some correction from “messengers” as heretical "challenges" ?

Blessings

There’s no question, there have been “messengers” in 2000 years who were themselves heretics. Paul himself warned Bp Titus of that very issue.

 

[benhur]

Yet they should go together…agreed ?

Hi steve, welcome back,

Only if the authority is based on correct interpretation of evidence>

Yet evidence properly identified as evidence, should not lead anyone to take or form contradictory conclusions

and what hardens clay softens wax,…" proper" (in truth and spirit) is needed by the “conclusion” and the holder.

And should such disagreements occur, there needs to be a valid authority to declare a decision on such a disagreement… agreed?

truth is valid irregardless of authority , though it prefers to rest on adherents. Their authority is conditional on being in "truth and spirit’ , else you get circular reasoning, self justification.

Re: ***writ ***says nothing of “Catholic”

what WRIT are you specifically referring to?

Writ says nothing of a Catholic Church , that is a capital C as in proper name, and not just an adjective. it also say nothing explicit of anyone appointing a head bishop over all the church after Peter (bishops/presbyters yes after all the apostles).

To be fair, that’s a bit like asking the rhetorical question, did Jesus screw up when He appointed Judas as an apostle.

Do you see where that goes?

Yes, being chosen does not mean you are right with God, and chosen for what ?

The OT has both examples that I was referring to . That is just who is speaking for God at any given moment , who has that ἡγούμενος, who goes before , leads, and who challenges falsely, or correctly ? Are P positions contrary to CC like that of Korah rebelling against Moses, or is it like Israel(CC) stoning her true prophets (P positions) as she did from time to time ?

There’s no question, there have been “messengers” in 2000 years who were themselves heretics. Paul himself warned Bp Titus of that very issue

Agree Steve, but have there been true messengers who were not heeded as true, like Paul was by the Jewish church? Which brings me back to suggest fallible appointments , not being “proper”, and calling heresy what is true . See the P perspective ?

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve, welcome back,

Thanks, good to be back :tiphat:
bh:

Only if the authority is based on correct interpretation of evidence>

Re: valid authority

Keep in mind, when Paul authoritatively wrote the following to Bp Titus,

[Titus 3:10 (Titus 3:10 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway)
“As for a man who is factious ( [αἱρετικὸν (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm) heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

**there was **

• no NT at this time
• no bible.at this time

neither would be confirmed for 300+ years after this event took place
yet there was rightful authority in place at this time, (the apostles and the Church) instituted by Jesus.
bh:

and what hardens clay softens wax,…" proper" (in truth and spirit) is needed by the “conclusion” and the holder.

truth is valid irregardless of authority , though it prefers to rest on adherents. Their authority is conditional on being in "truth and spirit’ , else you get circular reasoning, self justification.

How is that an answer to what I said?

Look at Paul’s instruction above to Bp Titus regarding just such disagreements. Paul is the authority there. He makes it clear he is not there to spar endlessly with a heretic. He says he gives a heretic 2 chances to change direction or Paul is moving on. And that’s what Paul instructs Bp Titus to do as well.

But the best example of ALL is Jesus own disciples who didn’t agree with Jesus on His teaching of the Eucharist, They left Him over what He taught. What’s so instructive here, Jesus didn’t go after them. He didn’t keep banging away at them to convince them. He let them go. Jesus said He knew in advance they had no faith. [Jn 6:66-67]

IMV Jesus letting them go, given the consequences for THEM, is one of the scariest passages in scripture
bh:

Writ says nothing of a Catholic Church , that is a capital C as in proper name, and not just an adjective. it also say nothing explicit of anyone appointing a head bishop over all the church after Peter (bishops/presbyters yes after all the apostles).
Yes, being chosen does not mean you are right with God, and chosen for what ?

Re: Capital “C” as a proper name, and not just an adjective,

Take a look at the Greek here from the Greek NT

Greek Study Bible (Acts 9:31)

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

The bold words ἁγίου πνεύματος , = holy spirit
Why isn’t God, the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, capitalized in Greek? Is it not the proper name of God the Holy Spirit?

Now back up to the begining of the Greek sentence.

ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς = the kataholos church , i,e, the church throughout all, or according to the whole, or universal, i.e kataholos is where the name Catholic comes from

look through this link. All the internal links are operational

#34

for space to be cont.

 

[steve_b]

it also say nothing explicit of anyone appointing a head bishop over all the church after Peter (bishops/presbyters yes after all the apostles).
Yes, being chosen does not mean you are right with God, and chosen for what ?

benhur,

in continuation,

Re: “Writ”

By that do you mean scripture?. If so, it needs to be said, for almost 400 years there WAS no “bible”. Therefore, there was no official NT “writ”. Therefore, there was no such thing as sola “writ”.

As far as evidence of succession of bishops from Peter, we’ve been over that proof with evidence properly referenced many times

One thing is certain, The Church didn’t come from the book, the book came from the Church
bh:

The OT has both examples that I was referring to . That is just who is speaking for God at any given moment , who has that ἡγούμενος, who goes before , leads, and who challenges falsely, or correctly ?

Jesus didn’t give the keys to just anyone. He didn’t give the keys to the Scribes and Pharisees who sat on Moses seat.

• Jesus brought in a new and everlasting covenant.
• Established His Church on Simon who He renames Cephas / Rock, / Peter
• Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Rock / Peter. Jesus changed tense of “you” 2nd person plural, when talking to all the apostles, to “you” 2nd person singular, showing He is talking directly to Peter.

bh:

Are P positions contrary to CC like that of Korah rebelling against Moses, or is it like Israel(CC) stoning her true prophets (P positions) as she did from time to time ?

benhur, all theological and ecclesial divisions from what Jesus established is condemned by the Church from the beginning, as it is in scripture. I’ve given plenty of references to that already.
bh:

Agree Steve, but have there been true messengers who were not heeded as true, like Paul was by the Jewish church? Which brings me back to suggest fallible appointments , not being “proper”, and calling heresy what is true . See the P perspective ?

Blessings

Re: bad popes.

There were a handful of them out of 266 successors to Peter, and the bad ones are all known by name. Did ANY one of THEM over 2000 years, violate the definition of infallibility defined on this post #[234 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14331849&postcount=234) ?

The answer is no.

Kinda remarkable…don’t you think?

 

[rcwitness]

By that do you mean scripture?. If so, it needs to be said, for almost 400 years there WAS no “bible”. Therefore, there was no official NT “writ”. Therefore, there was no such thing as sola “writ”.

I personally don’t care for this argument. We had Scripture from very early. Before we had all Scripture, we had living Apostles. There was no canon before around 400, but the was the contents of the canon.

 

[benhur]

I personally don’t care for this argument. We had Scripture from very early. Before we had all Scripture, we had living Apostles. There was no canon before around 400, but the was the contents of the canon.

Hi rc and steve,

At first I felt no big deal to our discussion , until I remembered that it is plain wrong assumption that they had no bible. But how else could Paul tell Timothy that their is salvation in Writ, and praised the Bereans for searching writ to see if the gospel is indeed perfectly fitting to OT writ?

In reality Jesus and the apostles had the “full bible’ of their time. The foundation of our beginnings had " full” bible , just not “closed” canon. The OT also helped mold our Christology
for the next three centuries, not just the NT.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc and steve,

At first I felt no big deal to our discussion , until I remembered that it is plain wrong assumption that they had no bible. But how else could Paul tell Timothy that their is salvation in Writ, and praised the Bereans for searching writ to see if the gospel is indeed perfectly fitting to OT writ?

In reality Jesus and the apostles had the “full bible’ of their time. The foundation of our beginnings had " full” bible , just not “closed” canon. The OT also helped mold our Christology
for the next three centuries, not just the NT.

Blessings

Hmmm… now I think you go slightly too far. I agree with you in ways, but in others I have to part.

Yes, the Apostles had the “full amount of Scripture of their time”. But so what? They had Divine Revelation which was not written down also. The Bereans did search the Scriptures, but they did so to help them accept that what the Apostles said about Jesus was supported by the Scriptures.

Acts 17
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.**Many of them therefore believed

Now,… what did Paul say that they checked the Scriptures to see???

We both agree there is prophecy about certain things concerning Jesus as the Christ. Therefore, we can safely assume the things they looked for in Scripture was regarding the things pointing to the Christ, and how Jesus fulfilled them. In fact, it’s very possible that what the Bereans did, was to look up the passages that Paul referenced while preaching.

Regarding the Bible, I believe the full “Deposit of Faith” was not complete within the Church until the death of St John the Apostle. These Twelve were given the full deposit, and not even until John received his heavenly vision.

I won’t even argue that, in a real way, the full deposit of the faith IS within the complete Canon of Scripture. But believers do not come to the same conclusions about what the contents reveal. So yes, of course the “OT helped mold our Christology over the next three centuries”… and further than that, too! The Full Deposit of Faith is not separate from Scripture, but nourished by it. Still, development AND confirmation regarding the message of Scripture is necessary.

 

[benhur]

Hmmm… now I think you go slightly too far. I agree with you in ways, but in others I have to part.

Yes, the Apostles had the “full amount of Scripture of their time”. But so what? They had Divine Revelation which was not written down also. The Bereans did search the Scriptures, but they did so to help them accept that what the Apostles said about Jesus was supported by the Scriptures.

Acts 17
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.**Many of them therefore believed

Now,… what did Paul say that they checked the Scriptures to see???

We both agree there is prophecy about certain things concerning Jesus as the Christ. Therefore, we can safely assume the things they looked for in Scripture was regarding the things pointing to the Christ, and how Jesus fulfilled them. In fact, it’s very possible that what the Bereans did, was to look up the passages that Paul referenced while preaching.

Regarding the Bible, I believe the full “Deposit of Faith” was not complete within the Church until the death of St John the Apostle. These Twelve were given the full deposit, and not even until John received his heavenly vision.

I won’t even argue that, in a real way, the full deposit of the faith IS within the complete Canon of Scripture. But believers do not come to the same conclusions about what the contents reveal. So yes, of course the “OT helped mold our Christology over the next three centuries”… and further than that, too! The Full Deposit of Faith is not separate from Scripture, but nourished by it. Still, development AND confirmation regarding the message of Scripture is necessary.

HI rc,

quickly , of course there is more in authority discussions. I only addressed "no bible’ point. Of course the apostles had authority > Of course there was/is oral word. of course Paul was/is authoritative…I like what you said about bereans…only add that it was fundamental, and priority of message…simple, not complicated…which is what some folks did later with some revelations, then claiming fullness…not sure you can be “fuller” in message than seeing /meeting Christ as Messiah /Saviour etc…(how we go from simplicity of Nicene Creed , to Trent declarations/creed).

Blessings