Protestants & the Bible

[William_Scott]

Hello Steve, you have succeeded in squeezing one last set of posts out of me before the weekend is over.

Yet The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches don’t buy into the “branch theory”. http://frnovak.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-branch-theory-dont-bet-your-eternal.html So it’s NOT just one Catholic apologist. The branch theory doesn’t exist

I skimmed the article. It appears to run at length regarding the current mess within churches in the Anglican tradition. I could add other errors to his list that he apparently forgot to mention (including the error of birth control that the EO has likewise compromised on). It’s somewhat ironic that the site you quoted listed the Roman Catholic “two lung doctrine” as another flawed “branch theory” and provides an implied call for those of you in the RCC to likewise repent and become EO:
"THE TWO LUNG BRANCH THEORY
In recent years a form of the Branch Theory has been taught in the Roman Catholic Church as well…
…The Roman Catholic teaching regarding the two lungs of the Body of Christ and that there are two Sister Churches is likewise impossible according to Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

…Roman Catholics who become Orthodox do not reject any part of genuine Catholicism, but only those innovations in faith and practice which contributed to the Great Schism, or arose in the centuries following it."

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over the EO wanting you to forsake your branch theory and other innovations and join them in their earthly Church utopia.

 

[William_Scott]

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

I have heard this quote many times, but never found it to ring true. I have spent a great deal of time over a number of years deep in the history of the Church (and this is likewise true of many non-RC’s). Further, I have a high esteem of the importance and authority of Tradition. My studies in Church history and respect of Tradition have only strengthened my conviction that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are both dead wrong in their (opposing) claims of being the “One True Church”. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes.

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize,

AND

all people are required to learn and be informed

There is a big difference between knowing about something and knowing something is true. From my limited knowledge of the Catechism, it appears to favor the latter as the litmus test for determining whether absence from Rome is damnable (at least in the case of Baptized Protestants who are trusting in Christ). Either way, any judgment from Rome for my lack of formal membership therein has about as much persuasive impact for me as the judgment of the EO has for you.

To flesh this out, I have a firm conviction that Rome’s claims to being the One True Church are not true, and that various dogmas of Rome are incorrect (despite my agreement with my RC brethren on many issues). You no doubt have a similarly firm conviction of the falsity of the EO claims that they alone are the True Church and that you are outside of this One True Church and thus–according to many EO-- you may only have a pretend Eucharist. It may be that both of us are just invincibly ignorant of the truth of superiority claims from other branches of the Church.

 

[deMontfort]

I have heard this quote many times, but never found it to ring true.

Yeah. I’m certainly what would be considered “deep in history”, yet I’m in the process of converting from Catholicism to Lutheranism.

 

[MT1926]

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?

Your post interested me and I would love to discuss this with you, but am not understanding your question?

I’m not seeing the conflict?

Could you please elaborate on what you believe we are holding in tension here? I must be missing something in the verses.

I’m guessing you are referring to Psalm 148 from the previous post and not understand where the confusion is that makes you ask how are we to make sense of this?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[lilypadrees]

William_Scott:

I have heard this quote many times, but never found it to ring true.

Yeah. I’m certainly what would be considered “deep in history”, yet I’m in the process of converting from Catholicism to Lutheranism.

Why would you want to do that?

 

[deMontfort]

deMontfort:

William_Scott:

I have heard this quote many times, but never found it to ring true.

Yeah. I’m certainly what would be considered “deep in history”, yet I’m in the process of converting from Catholicism to Lutheranism.

Why would you want to do that?

Would love to answer, however posts get flagged and removed and the poster suspended for giving such answers. I’ll just leave you with the words Modernist Heresy and apostasy and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[TULIPed]

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."

This is sort of like that scene in the movie “Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country” where Kirk can’t figure out where there’s common ground between humans and Klingons. It turned out that most of their animosity simply came from not understanding each other culturally. (I’m not saying that Catholics are Klingons here, maybe we’re the Klingons - Klingons turned out to be allies - just…you get the idea.)

Protestants are taught to filter everything we hear through the Word. And I mean everything. And we’re taught that certain words in the Bible are usually “reserved” - especially in the New Testament. For example, I think Catholics and Protestants agree that only God is worthy of “worship”. To worship anything or anyone else is idolatry. “Praise” is one of those words - it typically goes together with worship. “Glorify” counts as well.

(The irony here is not lost on me. I could see how you guys could think that we actually worship and glorify the Word over God. And I’m not to proud to say that I think perhaps sometimes we unintentionally “worship” scripture above our King. Anything can be an idol, no? Sin finds its way into everything it seems.)

So when we see these words associated with anyone but God (“Glorify her in the highest”), well - candidly - it’s a bit odd for us. I know you guys think it’s totally normal -I get it. I’m just asking for help in understanding how you manage (what I see as) the tension between not “worshipping” Mary, and using words like “glorify in the highest”.

Note - I’m not saying you worship Mary - I’ll take you at your word that you don’t.

 

[steve-b]

Hello Steve, you have succeeded in squeezing one last set of posts out of me before the weekend is over.

steve-b:

Yet The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches don’t buy into the “branch theory”. http://frnovak.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-branch-theory-dont-bet-your-eternal.html So it’s NOT just one Catholic apologist. The branch theory doesn’t exist

I skimmed the article. It appears to run at length regarding the current mess within churches in the Anglican tradition. I could add other errors to his list that he apparently forgot to mention (including the error of birth control that the EO has likewise compromised on).

The error I was focusing on in that article was “branch theory”.

William_Scott:

It’s somewhat ironic that the site you quoted listed the Roman Catholic “two lung doctrine” as another flawed “branch theory” and provides an implied call for those of you in the RCC to likewise repent and become EO:
"THE TWO LUNG BRANCH THEORY
In recent years a form of the Branch Theory has been taught in the Roman Catholic Church as well…
…The Roman Catholic teaching regarding the two lungs of the Body of Christ and that there are two Sister Churches is likewise impossible according to Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

Re: “2 lungs” and “sister Churches”

Technically the Church already has 2 lungs using that analogy. Eastern rites of the Catholic Church in full communion with the chair of Peter and those in complete union with the chair of Peter are that lung… Making everyone in that union The ONE Catholic Church.

Re: “sister Churches” vs “mother Church”

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

for clarification

1. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/05/02/sister-churches-a-clarification/

William_Scott:

…Roman Catholics who become Orthodox do not reject any part of genuine Catholicism, but only those innovations in faith and practice which contributed to the Great Schism, or arose in the centuries following it."

Catholics who become Orthodox, go into schism. One can exhaust them self in arguments trying to justify schism, but facts are facts. Schism is condemned in scripture.

William_Scott:

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over the EO wanting you to forsake your branch theory and other innovations and join them in their earthly Church utopia.

I don’t lose any sleep over that. Some day and that day will come for all of us, I won’t have to try justifying myself to the one who condemned division. Because I remained faithful in my allegiance to the only Church He established on Peter and those in complete communion with Peter.

 

[MT1926]

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."

Thanks for the response, but now I am more confused than ever? This isn’t what Psalm 148 says? Are you just using this to make a point or did you find this on a Catholic site somewhere? Because I’ve never seen it.

It turned out that most of their animosity simply came from not understanding each other culturally.

I agree with what you are saying here, that’s why I asked you for a further explanation before jumping to conclusions.

Protestants are taught to filter everything we hear through the Word. And I mean everything. And we’re taught that certain words in the Bible are usually “reserved” - especially in the New Testament. For example, I think Catholics and Protestants agree that only God is worthy of “worship”. To worship anything or anyone else is idolatry. “Praise” is one of those words - it typically goes together with worship. “Glorify” counts as well.

Yes I totally agree with what you say here. I think this is the main problem quite often. As a Catholic I was taught to filter through the original meaning of words and not always interpret based on current definitions.

Totally agree with the word worship, not so much with the word praise. Just go to biblegateway and type in the word praise. You will see it is used many times over and over not referencing God. Same goes with the word glorify.

So when we see these words associated with anyone but God (“Glorify her in the highest”), well - candidly - it’s a bit odd for us. I know you guys think it’s totally normal -I get it. I’m just asking for help in understanding how you manage (what I see as) the tension between not “worshipping” Mary, and using words like “glorify in the highest”.

I’m not sure where you are getting those words but all I can say is there is no tension.

I did a search on the word glorify and the only thing I can think of, that might be the tension, is that the word glorify seems to be only used with God in the New Testament. However, it is used for others in the Old Testament. Maybe that is the reason you were taught that glorify and praise can only be used for God alone. From the Catholic viewpoint we believe our understand of the Bible can not be sectioned out (OT vs NT) but that the Bible must be understood as a whole.

Not to say “gotcha”, because quite honestly the thought never entered my mind until now, but on the same grounds as the question you asked…How do you deal with the “tension” between believe praise and glory is for God alone when it is not written as being for God alone in the Bible, without presenting a contradiction?

Good topic,

God Bless

 

[TULIPed]

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/PSALTER.TXT

I just clipped it from one of William Scott’s earlier posts above.

 

[TULIPed]

And we agree that you can’t carve out the OT from the NT. On the contrary - understanding of the OT is key to fully understaning the NT (plus the OT has the best stories I think - lion’s dens, fiery furnaces, wheels of fire, oh my). Our Jewish friends are particularly focused on words and when/how they’re used, YHWH being the classic example thereof me thinks.

 

[TULIPed]

And - as is usually the case - there’s already a (quite long and extensive) thread in this forum on this very topic! I’ve read it through and there’s some really good discussion there. Happy to keep the conversation going here though, but I think I’ve got the gist from that great thread. Let me try and paraphrase.

If I have it correctly, in Latin there are very specific words for “worship” and “glory” that are used specifically for God (the highest level obviously) and then others. For example - one word for worship in Latin could more appropriately be translated as “venerate”.

Also - when Catholics think of grace coming from someone like Mary - they understand it to be that grace is actually coming from Christ through Mary. These understandings are more natural as Catholics see themselves - both in the Church militant and triumphant - as brothers and sisters. So it would be like my Mom sharing something of faith with me and as a result me feeling the grace of God imparted to me.

Generally the right direction?

 

[MT1926]

Thanks for the link. About all I can say about its content, is that it all comes down to how you want to interpret it. You can read as much or as little as you want into the words of St. Bonaventure.

About all I can add to the discussion here which might help to easy the tension that worries you is what I told someone else in another thread…

In my experience the Catholics that I encounter, who have a devotion to Mary and the Saints, tend to be the Catholics that goes to Mass every single day of the week, to celebrate the highest form of worship to God alone. They are the ones who say a 15 minute rosary before mass. Spend the hour at mass, which is all Jesus, and then spend another 15 minutes after mass praying to the Saints or meditations most likely similar to the Psalter you posted. They also tend to be the ones who read the Bible everyday, read spiritual books and attend a weekly hour of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (Jesus).

For anyone to truly believe a devotion to Mary causes them to be less focused on God than you are, then I can see where the tensions lie. It’s either in that person’s mind or they obviously have even higher standards of worship. As for me I for the most part understand the teaching and I’m not really going to point fingers, because I am no where close to the level of Spirituality that they are at. I wish I was because I gotta say they have a holy presence about them that I only wish I had.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

I have heard this quote many times, but never found it to ring true. I have spent a great deal of time over a number of years deep in the history of the Church (and this is likewise true of many non-RC’s).

Re: Newman’s quote, here is his exact quote, and explanation of that quote that he made famous.

" the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this".

From: Christianity of History not Protestantism

William_Scott:

Further, I have a high esteem of the importance and authority of Tradition. My studies in Church history and respect of Tradition have only strengthened my conviction that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are both dead wrong in their (opposing) claims of being the “One True Church”. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Since you’ve done all that study, then you will be able to give me the following answer to this question

When is the first time in history, properly referenced, that we see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing.

I’ve asked this question for 14+ years on these forums. No answer… YET … but I wait.

now “Catholic Church”

Yes.

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize,

AND

all people are required to learn and be informed

William_Scott:

There is a big difference between knowing about something and knowing something is true.

[clip for space]

Newman also addresses scepticism in the following

For some extra reading (A fraction of his work) from Newman, if interested. Some of this was written before he converted to Catholicism

Christianity in History
Christianity of History not Protestantism
Anglican Hypothesis
Rule of Vincent of Lerins
Doctrine of the Trinity
Purgatory and Original Sin
Eucharist and Papal Supremacy
Another Hypothesis: Disciplina Arcani
Toward a Solution of the Difficulty
Notes

 

[steve-b]

MiserereMei:

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.

You guys think "Roman" is the achilles heel? It’s NOT. It’s the phony argument used first by the Anglicans and everyone ELSE who is divided from the True Church…You DO know the letter by Paul to the Romans is a letter to the Church of Rome…right? Which is the last see of Peter. Peter is buried under the altar of the Vatican. Vatican Hill as it was known in the first century, was where Peter was crucified upside down under the reign of Nero. That is the see that succesors to Peter comes from. That is the headquarters of the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

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!”

I missed this post. Here’s my response

Re: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Apparently you missed section 3 in that document

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem."

IOW if one wants to be sure they are in the proper alignment with Jesus, they need to be fully incorporated in His Church

 

[TULIPed]

Thanks Steve. Yes, I read that part too (but it’s always good to reread important things - at least that’s what my mom always told me!).

We’ll have to agree to disagree on some of it - but I truly appreciate the tone and kind manner in which all of it is written. I think it’s a good model of how all believers are to evangelize.

 

[steve-b]

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.

I was responding in particular to your following point

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.

point being there is no contradiction between the CCC section 838 and that Vatican document.

 

[steve-b]

Thanks Steve. Yes, I read that part too (but it’s always good to reread important things - at least that’s what my mom always told me!).

We’ll have to agree to disagree on some of it - but I truly appreciate the tone and kind manner in which all of it is written. I think it’s a good model of how all believers are to evangelize.

To your points highlighted

• keep in mind, I’m only showing with references, from who and why I say what I say. What anyone does with that is completely up to them
• I’m 100% for ecumenism. Just thinking out loud, if ecumenical speak gives the impression to one who is separated that they can stay where they are with no consequences to them, then something is either wrong with the language used, or with the person’'s understanding reading the language used.

That’s why in a previous post , I used the following reference to Indifferentism and latitudinarianism HERE to make a further point

 

[TULIPed]

if ecumenical speak gives the impression to one who is separated that they can stay where they are with no consequences to them, then something is either wrong with the language used, or with the person’'s understanding reading the language used

Oh, I don’t know. I’ve had a wee bit of experience reading a complicated document or 2 in my time (probably not in the same league as your experience of course), and I personally think the RCC and UR are fairly (and impressively I might add) straightforward. Frankly, some of our confessions and catechisms could use a makeover in terms of readability come to think of it.

But, we Protestants can be simple folk and are always thankful for the interpretive help from our Catholic brothers and sisters