Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeadingBackHome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
Yes. What is the definition of reform,reformed,reformation? What needed to be reformed?

BTW: Many believe the CC had never reformed prior to Luther.
Click to expand...
I asked for an explanation, not pseudo-socratic dialogue. Could you please just clarify your sentence for me?
 
Novocastrian said:
Why would they say that prior to the schism? Before the schism they’d say that Rome was the true Church, precisely because it was the Orthodox Church!
Click to expand...
Precisely. So your comment that it is “a” true church,but not “the” true holds little weight in early church history. In todays theological chaos and revised church history it is a common belief.

“Was.” Again…according to who and when did such a belief come into play?
 
Nicea325 said:
Precisely. So your comment that it is “a” true church,but not “the” true holds little weight in early church history. In todays theological chaos and revised ecceliastical history it is a common belief.

“Was.” Again…according to who and when did such a belief come into play?
Click to expand...
To be honest, I’d say it’d be in the Roman negotiations with the Eastern Churches in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which they saw the Eastern Churches as having put themselves outside the One Church, while yet remaining true Churches in the sense of having retained their episcopate, baptism, etc.
 
HeadingBackHome said:
What is the most problematic “single issue” that keeps you from coming into full communion With Rome?

Is it the Papacy or is it Our veneration of Mary?

If you feel like it, please specify what direction of Christianity you belong to:)
  • Peace in Christ
Click to expand...
And also with you.

I am not convinced that, either scripturally or in Sacred Tradition, the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction.

Jon
 
josie_L said:
Protestants have 66 books in their Bible and Catholics have 73. Also, the word “alone” was added to Romans, if I’m not mistaken. So yes, different Bibles and different translations.

p.s. The Bible prior to the Reformation was not lacking 7 books.
Click to expand...
Can you offer an example of an English Bible that has the word “alone” “added” to Romans 3:28?

The Bibles in the east have more than the Western Bible. 🤷

Jon
 
josie_L said:
Protestants have 66 books in their Bible and Catholics have 73. Also, the word “alone” was added to Romans, if I’m not mistaken. So yes, different Bibles and different translations.

p.s. The Bible prior to the Reformation was not lacking 7 books.
Click to expand...
So the extra 7 books (none of which are quoted in the NT) are the ones which make all the difference as to how God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ? How is the doctrine of grace plainly set forth in Paul’s epistle to the Romans endangered thereby?
 
Novocastrian said:
To be honest, I’d say it’d be in the Roman negotiations with the Eastern Churches in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which they saw the Eastern Churches as having put themselves outside the One Church, while yet remaining true Churches in the sense of having retained their episcopate, baptism, etc.
Click to expand...
Well yes. Some argue a bit earlier. Not trying to pick a fight here or disrespect your specific faith and tradition. Unfortunately, blame goes to both and you and I know, it is a lot more complicated than time allows here. Culture,language,politics,etc all had a part in the split.
 
Nicea325 said:
I beg your pardon? Nothing pesudo what I am telling you. What needed to be reformed?
Click to expand...
I just meant that you seem unwilling to answer with anything other than a question. Which is (a) rude and (b) unhelpful.

But fine, I’ll bite. I pretty much agree with Anthony Levi that the real object of the reformation was to deal with an impasse reached in the development of scholastic theology, particularly with regard to the doctrines of grace and predestination. Certain strands of Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, and Biel seemed incompatible with each other, and with scripture. Levi highlights in particular Scotus’s facientibus principle (an attempt to mitigate his strong, absolute predestinarian soteriology): “facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam,” which seems a long way from Romans and Galatians; and Ockham’s distinction between God’s potentia ordinata and his potentia absoluta.

Sola fide was an attempt to fix this. Trent was another. I think sola fide does a better job, but they’re not a million miles away from one another.
 
I can’t see how there can be a middle ground between the religion of the Publican and the religion of the Pharisee. If we are saved by works (works and faith, with faith itself being a sort of work), we merit our salvation. If we merit our salvation, the gospel is not a rescue because salvation is a just reward. If salvation is a just reward then the gospel is not good news.
 
Unless we say that we are saved by God’s works, which we receive by faith. I’d be willing to say that in this sense we are saved by baptism, the Eucharist, ‘good works’ which are prompted by the Spirit, etc.

But I agree with your point.
 
Novocastrian said:
I just meant that you seem unwilling to answer with anything other than a question. Which is (a) rude and (b) unhelpful.

But fine, I’ll bite. I pretty much agree with Anthony Levi that the real object of the reformation was to deal with an impasse reached in the development of scholastic theology, particularly with regard to the doctrines of grace and predestination. Certain strands of Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, and Biel seemed incompatible with each other, and with scripture. Levi highlights in particular Scotus’s facientibus principle (an attempt to mitigate his strong, absolute predestinarian soteriology): “facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam,” which seems a long way from Romans and Galatians; and Ockham’s distinction between God’s potentia ordinata and his potentia absoluta.

Sola fide was an attempt to fix this. Trent was another. I think sola fide does a better job, but they’re not a million miles away from one another.
Click to expand...
Sorry,but my intentions were not meant to be rude. I mean one reason the reformation happened was due to abuses in the church-right? That is what I asked you what does reform mean? Evidently reformed was much needed and at times God needs to clean house.

Indeed theology is always one area of concern or disagreement. However, I disagree with Sola fide because I find it unbiblically incorrect.
 
HeadingBackHome said:
What is the most problematic “single issue” that keeps you from coming into full communion With Rome?

Is it the Papacy or is it Our veneration of Mary?

If you feel like it, please specify what direction of Christianity you belong to:)
  • Peace in Christ
Click to expand...
Many Anglicans & Lutherans believe we are Catholic. Veneration of Mary is not an issue with us but papal infallibility is.
 
JonNC said:
Can you offer an example of an English Bible that has the word “alone” “added” to Romans 3:28?

The Bibles in the east have more than the Western Bible. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
No, I don’t have an English bible with the word “alone”, but as I said in my first post, i.e., “if I’m not mistaken” (I do know Luther did add “alone” to his German translation). I am also aware of the East having more books (our canon was pretty much established from early on however), but their Holy Book/Bible also contains the deutorocanonical books (which means that both East and West agree they are Scriptural), i.e., they are not considered apocrypha.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Many Anglicans & Lutherans believe we are Catholic. Veneration of Mary is not an issue with us but papal infallibility is.
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct. I am Catholic…just not Roman Catholic. I Venerate the Blessed Mother…I believe in the communion of saints…the RP…I just do not need the pope to be Catholic.
 
josie_L said:
No, I don’t have an English bible with the word “alone”, but as I said in my first post, i.e., “if I’m not mistaken” (I do know Luther did add “alone” to his German translation). I am also aware of the East having more books (our canon was pretty much established from early on however), however, their Holy Book/Bible also contains the deutorocanonical books (which means that both East and West agree they are Scriptural), i.e., they are not considered apocrypha.
Click to expand...
Luther didn’t “add” alone. His was a translation, not a transliteration. People can disagree with the use of alone in helping the text reflect in German what was said in the Greek, but that is different than “adding”. The proof of this is what you have discovered; the word alone isn’t in the English because it isn’t necessary in the English for the text to make sense to the English speaker.

I suspect their canons were rather early on as well. There has never been a universally accepted canon in the Church. There have always been disputed books, long before the Reformation era. Luther’s Bible includes 74 books, and the Lutheran confessions to not identify a specific canon by books.

My guess would be that few Lutherans are Lutheran and not Catholic simply because of the disputed books of the Deuterocanon.

Jon
 
Novocastrian said:
Photios clearly thought Rome could err.

But what exactly are you asking? You’re asking me to show that the Orthodox thought that Rome was not the Church in an age when (they believe) Rome was Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Yes, Photios, not the Church, i.e., the Eastern Orthodox only have 7 councils which they consider ecumenical.
 
dronald said:
Which translation has “alone” in it? None of mine say that.

I’ve heard Luther added or wanted to add that, but Lutherans will be quick to kick my butt if I’m wrong so I don’t make uneducated claims like that.
Click to expand...
He DID add the word to his German translation.

So much for not adding to scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top