Protestants & the Bible

[steve-b]

William_Scott:

Steve said:
“I would just add this to one of my previous posts
Anglicans don’t have valid orders, ergo no valid Eucharist. That goes for all Protestants regardless of stripe”

Thanks Steve. Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and countless Liberal Christians of all stripes (RC, Protestant, etc.) share your opinion on a sacrament devoid of supernatural grace in Protestant churches. Unfortunately, these same individuals (along with many Eastern Orthodox) think the same thing about your sacrament. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.

I would just say , Everybody you list are hardly ones to base your sleep on.

William_Scott:

The RC teaches that separated brethren, despite their alleged lack of a valid Eucharist, are still incorporated savingly into Christ through faith and Baptism (provided they are not walking in mortal sin–and I would agree as did the early reformers on the mortal sin part btw). Your apparent interpretation/application of Christ’s Words (as essentially excluding Protestants from salvation) is directly at odds with your own Catechism.
818 " . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
I’m probably out for the next week or more, so have a great rest of your weekend.

As I said previously, don’t stop there, keep reading to #846
And
Just because one is Christian doesn’t mean they are automatically going to heaven when they die.

Think of the story of the Prodigal son. While away and in sin, what did the father say of this son who was prodigal? Not that he is no longer a son, but that “this son of mine was dead”. If he remained away and didn’t come back, and remained separated from the family, that son would have been separated forever. Who told the story? Jesus

 

[steve-b]

William_Scott:

It was certainly a schism in the eyes of James and John. However, Christ noted that despite outward separation, if this outward “schismatic” was performing miracles in His Name he was on the same team.

The notion that good is not good unless it is done by let’s say James or John, is what Jesus is addressing.

William_Scott:

We know (as St. Aquinas notes) the greatest miracle that occurs through Christ’s Name is the resurrection of an eternal soul that is dead in sins through faith in Christ, sealed in Holy Baptism. The Catholic Catechism explicitly teaches that this greatest of all miracles in Christ’s Name occurs among separated brethren as they teach the Word and Baptize in the Name of the Blessed Trinity:
"819 Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church…” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

As I said in previous posts, don’t stop reading there.

Re: outside the Church there is no salvation

(all emphasis mine)

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Therefore, Let’s not wade into indifferentism or into latitudinarianism

William_Scott:

It’s sad that so many in the Roman Catholic Church (including at the highest levels) are doing their best to copy the absurd indifferentism, latitudinarianism, apostasy from any semblance of Biblical morality, etc practiced by the spiritually bankrupt bodies of the Anglican Communion in the Western World (e.g. the monstrosity of the Episcopalian Church, which believes genocide of the unborn is a beautiful thing…).

The Catholic Church has always officially “taught” truth. Have there been Judases? Absolutely. Jesus never promised a Judas free Church. However, the Catholic Church has all of Jesus promises. It’s the ONLY Church Jesus established on Peter and his successors, the bishops in complete union with him.

 

[steve-b]

And? Perhaps I must apologize for a faulty understanding of your communion’s ecclesiology. I was under the impression that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, hence my reference to Pius IX being “some Roman bishop”. For such a grave misunderstanding, I am sorry. Perhaps also, I am merely a rude paganus who cares little for the cursus honorum or the status that it brings among men.

It was your phrasing.

 

[MiserereMei]

I am sorry my phrasing was confusing for you.

My point was this: Please do not give me an appeal to authority. I do not accept something merely on the basis of the name and rank of the person saying it (excluding Scripture, contextually). If you wish to argue against my rather milquetoast compromise, please use actual evidence. Thank you, and have a nice evening.

 

[joeybaggz]

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma.

By the way, Baseball-Guy, I hope this doesn’t shock you, but you are going to lose that engagement. One has to understand that for Protestants, they are so heavily invested in their belief of sola scriptura and their seeing the RCC as the big enemy, that nothing you are going to say is going to win that engagement, change a mind, win an argument. It is a losing cause. Better simply to talk about football or something and say a prayer to the Lord that they may see the light.

 

[steve-b]

I am sorry my phrasing was confusing for you.

My point was this: Please do not give me an appeal to authority. I do not accept something merely on the basis of the name and rank of the person saying it (excluding Scripture, contextually). If you wish to argue against my rather milquetoast compromise, please use actual evidence. Thank you, and have a nice evening.

I provide, with links, where my points come from. They are ALL authoritative sources. Certainly including scripture, but NOT scripture alone. Without authority one only has opinions that can’t ever be settled with an anti authoritarian.

 

[MiserereMei]

Dude. You put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle. The emphasis is on the merely, not the authority.

While I am not an authoritarian, I am not anti-authoritarian.

 

[steve-b]

Dude. You put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle. The emphasis is on the merely, not the authority.

While I am not an authoritarian, I am not anti-authoritarian.

I went with what you said

" Please do not give me an appeal to authority. I do not accept something merely on the basis of the name and rank of the person saying it (excluding Scripture, contextually).

You say that, and follow it up with you aren’t accepting of the name, & rank of the person, then I’m thinking Try getting away with that in a purely secular sense, in a court of law directed at the judge.

 

[MiserereMei]

Again, you are missing the word MERELY.

If I had to answer a question in the classroom, unless the question was asking specifically what were the words of the fellow, and I just threw out a quote from Martin Luther with nothing else, I should expect to be graded harshly.

If a man is tried in an international court for war crimes, and the President is quoted to defend him, and that is the only evidence in favor of the man, he is not likely to get out of those proceedings in a favorable light.

That is what I mean. You need more evidence, more reason, than the words of some Important Person for there to be any validity in an argument. The words of an Important Person CAN be used to corroborate, or else form a pattern of argument, or as a piece of support. But if you have ONLY their words, especially without their own reasoning that they used to back up the quoted words, then you have no case.

Do we now understand each other on this?

 

[steve-b]

Again, you are missing the word MERELY.

If I had to answer a question in the classroom, unless the question was asking specifically what were the words of the fellow, and I just threw out a quote from Martin Luther with nothing else, I should expect to be graded harshly.

If a man is tried in an international court for war crimes, and the President is quoted to defend him, and that is the only evidence in favor of the man, he is not likely to get out of those proceedings in a favorable light.

That is what I mean. You need more evidence, more reason, than the words of some Important Person for there to be any validity in an argument. The words of an Important Person CAN be used to corroborate, or else form a pattern of argument, or as a piece of support. But if you have ONLY their words, especially without their own reasoning that they used to back up the quoted words, then you have no case.

Do we now understand each other on this?

I not only gave a name but the context HERE

Apparently That’s not good enough for you. Yet you believe the scriptures because someone told you to believe in them? Do I understand that is your point?

Do you realize the Catholic Church wrote the NT? Every one of the writers were in the Church they were writing to and for. That is the Catholic Church that told the world to believe in the 73 books the Church classified as authentic and canonized them, in a.d.382.

Where’s your sense of proportion in what you say is good enough.?

 

[MiserereMei]

This is getting no where.

No, it is not good enough. Where is the honorable bishop’s reason? You have given me no context. You gave me a list of declarations, with no reason, no explication, no explanation, no support. How, to any rational person, is that context, let alone a cogent argument?

I believe the Scriptures because I believe the Resurrection. I believe the Resurrection because I have investigated the evidence, Biblical, traditional, and non-Christian. If not for that, I would not believe the Bible—Why should I? If not for the Resurrection, this life is all there is.

Just because the modern Roman Catholic Church calls itself Catholic does not mean that it is identified as the same exact entity as the ancient Church. That is the same exact game the Mormons play with their “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. It is nothing more than a shoddy public relations game. What of the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox? Both of those make the same exact claims as your communion, and play the same exact advertising games. You need actual historical proof. It is far more likely, looking at the various traditions within patristic thought itself, that Christianity slowly fragmented over the centuries, partly along political lines, partly along theological-traditional lines, leading us to the mess we have today (and you all who claim to be the “one true church on earth” are not guitless: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc, etc) , with NO individual communion being fully the “one, true Church” in terms of a structural and visible entity. And before you bring up the thousands of Protestant denominations, no Protestant group other than the Lutheran tradition is relevant for our discussion here. At all.

Where is my sense of proportion? Let’s try this: Enough to convince a Master’s student in Religion.

 

[MichaelP3]

Just because the modern Roman Catholic Church calls itself Catholic does not mean that it is identified as the same exact entity as the ancient Church.

I have conversed with the poster on that exact same point on numerous occasions. Just when you think… okay… you just see the same post copied and pasted again somewhere else.

You will see that same argument from the same poster many more times if you come around on CAF. It’s about 2 years since I started to notice it and it is still there.

 

[MichaelP3]

One can rather argue the one was a lot more educated in theology than the other. And also not influenced by thoughts like infallibility and so forth.

The one was definitely an academic and the other was not.

 

[TULIPed]

Steve - between Unitas Redintegratio and Section 838 of the RCC - you’ve got a tough position here brother. I mean, going with your interpretation, either the guys writing the catechism are deliberately misleading or they’re just poor writers. I don’t think they’re either.

We can love the Lord, be babtized and be in “imperfect communion”. The Catholic priest who married my wife and me told me so (and gave the best homily most of my Protestant friends have ever seen - seriously - dude nailed it).

In the immortal words of ESPN, “C’mon man!”

 

[William_Scott]

Hello Steve, it looks like you got me back on the blog for one more round this weekend…

There is no branch theory.

If you are interested check out Fr Longenecker

He writes

• Here
• Here

Just because a Roman Catholic apologist says there is no branch theory doesn’t mean the branch theory doesn’t exist I am under no illusion of a pristine and glorious pre-Roman English Church. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether allegiance to Rome determines whether or not a Church or individual is within the Body of Christ.

That said, I did skim his articles. I agree that the Anglican Church is a mess–although its messiness can be one of its beauties when it’s within the bounds of basic Creedal orthodoxy. Of course, Episcopalian “gifts” to the Church such as Spongism, sacrificing unborn children on the Altar of Molech, godess worship, etc. are not within any tolerable bounds.

And, in addition to the modern out-of-bound follies of the Episcopalian Church and its ilk, one of the greatest and foundational out-of-bound gifts to Christendom from creeping liberalism within the Anglican Church is the justification of birth control in the 1930s at Lambeth. [Side Note: As I’m sure you would agree–in addition to birth control being a direct rejection of Scripture’s strong admonitions and 2000 years of Tradition, history shows birth control was the portal for the subsequent genocide of abortion that we now have on our hands. I am very grateful for the RCCs strong stand on this matter–contra the compromise of Anglicans and the vast majority of Protestant traditions. Unfortunately, statistics show that a similar % of RCs and Protestants use birth control–which is a sad commentary for the state of all Christendom at this time.]

 

[William_Scott]

On another point Longenecker mentioned–while Anglicanism was intricately tied to “Englishness” at one time, I would wager that very few in our current day are anglophiles. For instance, conviction regarding the better alignment of traditional Anglicanism with Tradition and Scripture on a variety of issues is the only reason I would label my beliefs in any sense “Anglican”. Further, I’m not a member of a Church in the Anglican tradition at present–so I can’t even define myself as “Anglican” at this time in the normative sense of Church affiliation. Beyond this, I believe that virtually every Scriptural/Creedal tradition within the Body of Christ (and not just Anglicanism) has unique strengths that they provide-or should provide-to the Body of Christ as a whole, and that no one tradition has a corner on Truth.

In sum, I believe Anglicanism at its best is simply “mere Christianity”. In that vein I would say my true allegiance is only to Christianity, as revealed in Scripture, understood by 2000 years of Tradition and explained in its fundamentals in the Creeds of the Universal Church. Anglicanism could disappear and I would care very little–in fact, it would be preferred if it meant that we were all of one heart and mind in Christ.

[Another side note: while I am very critical of the out-of bound messes in the Anglican Church (and in the Protestant Churches more broadly), I find it somewhat ironic that the apologist speaks in language of virtual disbelief at the messes of Anglicanism when there is so much mess in the RCC at this time. It seems that it might be wise for the RCC to clean house itself before it spends so much time pointing out the messes in other Churches.]

Keep reading

Re: Outside the Church there is no salvation

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:…Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336

Surely you’re aware of invincible ignorance–the quote you provided here implicitly states it (i.e. the mortal/damnable sin of not entering the Roman Catholic Church only applies for those who know it was “founded as necessary by God but refuse to enter or remain in it”). The assumption from the RCC Catechism is that Protestants who believe in Christ and are Baptized are incorporated into Christ and in communion (albeit imperfect) with His Church. In other words, per the Catechism it is to be assumed that Protestants who believe and seek to obey Christ’s Word are in invincible ignorance and are not acting damnably against a conscience or heart that knows that the RCC is the One True Church. I can say that “invincible ignorance” as defined by the Catechism would certainly apply in my own case, and in the case of every non-Roman Catholic brother and sister that I know.

 

[William_Scott]

Finally, I should add that there are serious doctrinal reasons (based on Scripture and Tradition) that I cannot accept the RC faith, or the EO faith for that matter. I’ve noted a key item in another post on the “What Do Protestants Really Think About the Catholic Church” thread (namely the inherent and fundamental problems with invoking saints and angels). What do Protestant really believe about the Catholic Church? - #112 by JonNC

Here’s another example of the great walls that separate myself and countless others from unity with our brothers in Rome (and there are similar unacceptable devotions that are part of liturgies and teachings of the EO)–from the Lady Psalter:
PSALM 148 "Let us praise Our Lady in the heavens: glorify her in the highest.

Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea.

Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets.

Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers.

Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly
dwellers."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/PSALTER.TXT

The REAL Psalter (Psalm 148)
148 Praise ye the Lord. Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him in the heights.

2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
…
10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:

11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:

12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children:

13 Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.

Psalm 148 KJV - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

That’s probably it for me for a while. Have a good rest of your weekend.

 

[TULIPed]

I was raised Protestant (the Calvinist flavor). Literally as long ago as I can remember, I was taught “Only God is worthy of praise and worship”. Anything else is idolatry. The lens through which I was taught this concept is the Word. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…” When in doubt, read the Bible. If you have a question, go to the catechisms or the confessions, then to your pastor - but always, always read first.

On the other hand, I have never met a Catholic who would say that we are to worship Mary. Every Catholic I have discussed this with has said that Mary is to be venerated (which Protestants agree whole heartedly with - if she hadn’t said “yes” after all, where would we be?), that she is the Mother of God, and who better to intercede on our behalf? Personally, I’d prefer to go to my Father (Daddy) with prayer, but I can see the other side (who doesn’t know about trying to keep their mom happy?)

The challenge for us Protestants begins when we read passages like the one quoted here. If memory serves, this Psalter conflicts with the RCC in terms of who is worthy of worship and praise (only God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit). How are we to make sense of this? This question is not meant to be pejorative - rather, I am genuinely interested in how my Catholic brothers and sisters hold these things in tension?

 

[steve-b]

Hello Steve, it looks like you got me back on the blog for one more round this weekend…

steve-b:

There is no branch theory.

If you are interested check out Fr Longenecker

He writes

• Here
• Here

Just because a Roman Catholic apologist says there is no branch theory doesn’t mean the branch theory doesn’t exist

Yet The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches don’t buy into the “branch theory”. Fr. Novak's Blog: THE BRANCH THEORY - Don't Bet Your (Eternal) Life On It So it’s NOT just one Catholic apologist. The branch theory doesn’t exist

William_Scott:

I am under no illusion of a pristine and glorious pre-Roman English Church. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether allegiance to Rome determines whether or not a Church or individual is within the Body of Christ.

That said, I did skim his articles. I agree that the Anglican Church is a mess–although its messiness can be one of its beauties when it’s within the bounds of basic Creedal orthodoxy. Of course, Episcopalian “gifts” to the Church such as Spongism, sacrificing unborn children on the Altar of Molech, godess worship, etc. are not within any tolerable bounds.

And, in addition to the modern out-of-bound follies of the Episcopalian Church and its ilk, one of the greatest and foundational out-of-bound gifts to Christendom from creeping liberalism within the Anglican Church is the justification of birth control in the 1930s at Lambeth. [Side Note: As I’m sure you would agree–in addition to birth control being a direct rejection of Scripture’s strong admonitions and 2000 years of Tradition, history shows birth control was the portal for the subsequent genocide of abortion that we now have on our hands. I am very grateful for the RCCs strong stand on this matter–contra the compromise of Anglicans and the vast majority of Protestant traditions. Unfortunately, statistics show that a similar % of RCs and Protestants use birth control–which is a sad commentary for the state of all Christendom at this time.]

John Henry Newman made the following phrase famous, when he was investigating why he was Anglican. He found

"to be deep in history, is to cease being a Protestant"

That is a HUGE statement, because it says in so few words what is true

 

[steve-b]

Keep reading

Re: Outside the Church there is no salvation

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:…Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336

William_Scott:

Surely you’re aware of invincible ignorance–

Yes.

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize,

AND

all people are required to learn and be informed

Re: Invincible ignorance.

• Subject is highly difficult to know (that’s not an issue. God didn’t make our faith open to only rocket scientists)
• Evidence is scarce (again, information in our time has never in history been so easy to access)
• Insufficient mental ability of the individual (to use a politically incorrect term, mentally retarded)
  *Invincible ignorance also presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended, they (the mentally challenged) still can’t know or understand the subject. So Outside of mental retardation, our faith is NOT difficult to learn

Also

Invincible ignorance is not voluntary. It is involuntary. For example, Rejection of knowledge, is a voluntary act, and If one knows a teaching and the importance of a teaching, and rejects it, then one cannot claim Invincible Ignorance. Rejection of knowledge has become at that point willfull and voluntary. It is not imputed as a sin if one fails to know what is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such things is called invincible, when it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: OTOH, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it is about things one is bound to know. and refuses to accept it.

That said, the CCC states Re: ignorance
Ignorance