Protestants, why?

[joe370]

Aefensang

I would not agree with that, because it contradicts itself:

How could Marcion propose the removal of the Old Testament from the Scripture if the canon of Scripture was not yet settled? He could hardly get rid of the OT by altering the NT if neither one officially existed yet. Remember, Marcion flourished in the 150s, 250 years before the (contradictory) canons were defined at Hippo and Carthage.

The OT did exist as well as the NT, however, it had yet to be officially defined, and because it had yet be officially defined, he thought he could make some changes. The CC stepped in and deferred to the tradition of the church, dating back to the early years, to resolve the matter.

Your presentation of Marcion’s history assumes my side of the argument to be correct: that the Canon was already complete and recognised by all in the middle of the 2nd century. It somewhat defeats your point, as far as I can tell?

Agreed. However there were certain books at the time being used, that didn’t make the final cut in the 4th century, just as there were certain books rejected e.g. book of revelation and Peter, that eventually made the final cut in the 4th century.

By the way, in case you mention the canon of 382 from Pope Damasus: there was no definition of the Canon at the Council of Rome in 382. The “Damasine Canon” is was faked by a 6th century anon.

See: tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

I will look into that. Point is: the CC codified the bible, and they deferred to the trsadition of the church as the measuring rod to determine which books were not from the apostles.

If there are grave difficulties for the Protestant version of the history of the Church and Scripture, there are equally grave difficulties for the Roman version.

I see no grave difficulties. I see scandals and corruption at various levels, all predicted by our Lord and Savior, but as far as sacred tradition goes, I see it as an invaluable means, as I have attempted to demonstrate.

Now, I wish you a good and joyous night as well, and a blessed Sunday to everyone else discussing here.

Peace brother…

 

[Gwendolen]

This question could have been asked already, but I’ll ask it anyway. Why are you Protestant? What about the Catholic Church do you not agree with and why?

Not sure you really want the answer to this. I am not interested in arguing about any of them, I realize they are not flattering, but here is the disagreements I have heard my whole life.

Raised Protestant, here are the pressing issues I have heard, pretty much my whole life, that are “turn offs”. They all on some level have been something I have had to reconcile, with varying degrees of success.

annulment – has been a subject of discussion for years – many people don’t get it, and think that it is a way to “cheat” the no divorce and remarriage rule. The perception is that it is hypocritical – don’t understand how two people could be married for 15 years with a household have 3 kids, etc. and then have a decree that the marriage never existed. The only reasons Protestant I have talked to understand for an annulment would be something like a 14 year old being forced to get married, or someone getting drunk in Vegas and waking up the next day finding out they got married under the influence. I’ve even heard Protestants point out that if a Catholic was unsure their marriage was going to last, they could get married outside the church, see how it went, and if it dissolved, go home to the church and get it annulled later, and if they stayed married reconcile with the church with co-validation or whatever it is called.

a lack of acceptance of other denominations. Many mainstream denominations, like Methodist, Presbyterian, etc, don’t think of them selves as the one true church, and find such an attitude arrogant. An belief that one is a member of the only church that has the “fullness of truth” and everyone else is “wrong” on some level is perceived as an stuck up attitude. This is reinforced by things like not letting Christian non-Catholics take communion, or be godparents to close relatives having babies baptized. Both of these issues don’t come up as much in other churches, where communion is open to all baptized, and godparents, if they even have them, can be from any Christian denomination. I understand why, but the assumption made by others is that non-Catholics are not “good enough”, and this is perceived as a “non-Christian” attitude. When a non-Catholic Christian comes to a Catholic church for a wedding or funeral, and not given communion, may not understand why, and are not interested in exploring the faith further. Or they may understand, and think that the belief that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ unsettling. When you are a non-Catholic at a Catholic mass, it is easy to feel like an outsider, which doesn’t make one want to return.

Following on the tails of this is the sex abuse scandal “yeah, they say they are the one true faith, and those priests are acting in the person of Christ while sexually abusing children, and the bishops look the other way” There was a tremendous amount of damage here.

Birth control – this is huge – the Catholic faith is the only one I know of that outlaws ABC of all kinds in all circumstances. Even the Orthodox allow non-abortifacts to space pregnancies. Protestants will frequently look to the Bible for direction, and the only passage I know of about birth control is about Oman not impregnating his brother’s wife, but spilling his seed. The interpretation I hear about this passage is that just because Oman did not fulfill his obligation does not mean that ABC is wrong in every circumstance. Many married couples have times in their lives where they just feel like a pregnancy would cause a huge stress on their marriage – just gave birth, job loss, 2 children under 3 with both parents working, etc, and they are loathe to give up ABC entirely, because they are scared, not selfish as some here would suggest, but scared of stressing their marriage. As someone whose life would be threatened by another pregnancy (mine and baby’s), this is the issue I struggle with the most, and if I don’t convert, this will be why.

Priests not getting married – people don’t get this, either. Again, as Protestants turn to the Bible, there are no passages that jump out telling priests not to marry. In fact, Paul tells Timothy, in instructions for selecting a bishop, to seek out someone who has “been married to one woman” and a good manager of his own household. For me personally, I don’t get this either, even after reading links here, but it wouldn’t keep me from the church.

Confusion over praying to saints and the Holy Mother vs worshiping them. Many Protestant denominations do not get the “communion of saints” concept, and mistake prayer for worship.

Anyway, these are the things that Protestant hear, and I think some of these things keep them from coming in for a closer look. Just my opinion.

 

[joe370]

Gwendolen;

annulment – has been a subject of discussion for years – many people don’t get it, and think that it is a way to “cheat” the no divorce and remarriage rule. The perception is that it is hypocritical – don’t understand how two people could be married for 15 years with a household have 3 kids, etc. and then have a decree that the marriage never existed. The only reasons Protestant I have talked to understand for an annulment would be something like a 14 year old being forced to get married, or someone getting drunk in Vegas and waking up the next day finding out they got married under the influence. I’ve even heard Protestants point out that if a Catholic was unsure their marriage was going to last, they could get married outside the church, see how it went, and if it dissolved, go home to the church and get it annulled later, and if they stayed married reconcile with the church with co-validation or whatever it is called.

So you don’t like the idea of an anuulment?

…a lack of acceptance of other denominations.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -** for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame**."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . .** 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

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. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

This is reinforced by things like not letting Christian non-Catholics take communion, or be godparents to close relatives having babies baptized.

We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus’ Body and Blood and therefore one should go to confession first as to not approach the Holy Eucharist with sin on the soul. Seems reasonable.

both of these issues don’t come up as much in other churches, where communion is open to all baptized, and godparents, if they even have them, can be from any Christian denomination. I understand why, but the assumption made by others is that non-Catholics are not “good enough”, and this is perceived as a “non-Christian” attitude.

No church is better than any other church; that’s silly. As a catholic (former protestant) I could say the same thing about protestant churches.

When a non-Catholic Christian comes to a Catholic church for a wedding or funeral, and not given communion, may not understand why, and are not interested in exploring the faith further. Or they may understand, and think that the belief that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ unsettling. When you are a non-Catholic at a Catholic mass, it is easy to feel like an outsider, which doesn’t make one want to return.

If you were to talk to a priest, or members of the CC, I guarantee you that you won’t feel like an outsider. When I walk into protestant churches (most of my family is protestant) I feel really unwelcomed. I am sure that would change if I told the Pastor that I was interested in his church. Just do a google search. The CC is hated like no other church.

Following on the tails of this is the sex abuse scandal “yeah, they say they are the one true faith, and those priests are acting in the person of Christ while sexually abusing children, and the bishops look the other way” There was a tremendous amount of damage here.

Those few priest masquerading as shepherds will have to face their maker one day, and we all know how God feels about people hurting children. Eternal hell is a long time…the scripture tells us the scandal in Jesus’ church is unavoidable. You give me the name of a protestant church and I will show you scandal. Satan hates all churches and is attempting to destroy from within.

Birth control…

I agree with you on this one, but it’s not enough to keep me from the Holy Eucharist.

Priests not getting married – people don’t get this, either. Again, as Protestants turn to the Bible, there are no passages that jump out telling priests not to marry. In fact, Paul tells Timothy, in instructions for selecting a bishop, to seek out someone who has “been married to one woman” and a good manager of his own household. For me personally, I don’t get this either, even after reading links here, but it wouldn’t keep me from the church.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

It took me a while to understand the fact that the assembly of believers (Jesus’ Mystical Body) is who the Priest is committed to, for life, like a real marriage. As a minister, conformed to the one High Priest, Jesus, the priest wants to follow Jesus’ example in every way.

Confusion over praying to saints and the Holy Mother vs worshipping them. ny Protestant denominations do not get the “communion of saints” concept, and mistake prayer for worship.

If you can provide even one official or unoffical catholic document that states that we must worship eith the saints or Mary I will leave the CC, and that’s no lie.

If you want the truth as to what the catholic church teaches stick around, or read the on-line catechism.

Anyway, these are the things that Protestant hear, and I think some of these things keep them from coming in for a closer look. Just my opinion.

And it is usually from other protestants who either lie intentionally or are simply ignorant as to what the CC actually teaches.

Peace brother…

 

[Porknpie]

I did not make claims for 3 John or Hebrews. The only clues in the New Testament pointing to new authoritative scriptures being written at the time, are two: Paul’s quoting Luke as scripture, and Peter’s referring to Paul as scripture. Regardless of whether Peter wrote 2 Peter, the words calling Paul’s epistles ‘scripture’ are in that text. These are little clues, I think, toward the Protestant conception of history.

St Paul is warning of private interpretation of scripture in 2 Peter. The word scripture is not referring to a new authoritative text. I don’t see any little clues. Help…

19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

 

[Porknpie]

Priests not getting married – people don’t get this, either. Again, as Protestants turn to the Bible, there are no passages that jump out telling priests not to marry. In fact, Paul tells Timothy, in instructions for selecting a bishop, to seek out someone who has “been married to one woman” and a good manager of his own household. For me personally, I don’t get this either, even after reading links here, but it wouldn’t keep me from the .

Gwendolyn-

You may already understand this but celibacy is a church discipline and not dogma. The church has had married priests in the past and accepts Anglican priests who are married to convert to Catholicism. The scripture the church most often cites for celebacy are Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. One of the keys here are to differentiate scripture as it relates to the sheep and the shepherds. Even non-catholic pastors will attest to the difficulty at times being shepards of their flock and husbands & fathers.

19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not make claims for 3 John or Hebrews.

I understand that, Aefensang.

But is not your bigger point that, really, we don’t need a Church to tell us what’s Scripture? After all, don’t the Scriptures attest to what’s* theopneustos* by giving us “cliues”?

If that’s not your point, then do you acknowledge that the ONLY way you know that 3 John and Hebrews is inspired is because some OUTSIDE authority–something NOT Scripture–declared this for you?

If it is your point, (that we can know what’s Scripture because of the clues a text provides), then please offer what clues are in 3 John and Hebrews that also eliminate the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

 

[Aefensang]

I cannot possibly reply to all the words posted since last night, so I will just answer simply:

As an Anglican Protestant, willfully keeping to apostolic succession, to a visible church, and to unity, I believe Richard Hooker (our Aquinas) was right when he said that our system is Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

We get the absolutely essential truths from Scripture, which was rigorously researched and handed down (tradere) by a vast array of holy men, ordained & lay, in the first century or two. Once the canon was confirmed, it was set for all time as our divine, holy scriptures, above which nothing can stand. Naturally the truth had to be held constantly until the 2nd century, when we have Melito of Sardis giving pretty much the same Canon as today.

Significantly, though one or two books may be off in different lists before the 4th century, none of the early Fathers before the Councils say the Gospels or Epistles are not Scripture. They agreed on the clearest, most obvious books long before any Council could possibly have existed to confirm them, in the dark days of the Empire.

Just an example:

“When I went East and came to the place where these things [the Gospel]
were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee [his brother] as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis (1), Exodus (2), Numbers (3), Leviticus (4), Deuteronomy (5); Jesus Nave (6), Judges (7), Ruth (8); of Kings, four books (9/10); of Chronicles, two (11); the Psalms of David (12), the Proverbs of Solomon also called Wisdom (13), Ecclesiastes (14), Song of Songs (15), Job (16); of Prophets, Isaiah (17), Jeremiah (18); of the twelve prophets, one book (19); Daniel (20), Ezekiel (21), Esdras (22).”

Authority was indeed needed to confirm the book, but once the manual was given, all was set in stone. This is an Anglican speaking, not one who despises authority, tradition, and reason. History testifies, so we must concur or risk falsehood.

I do not retract my saying that only GOD the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are infallible persons. No men are ever infallible, for it is a gift and not a right. I am perfectly content believing that the Apostles were infallibly inspired to write the doctrine, and the first age of men after the Apostles were guided and illuminated by the Spirit to gather it up.

With regards to the Old Testament, Hilary, Athanasius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory Nazianzen all firmly held the Protestant canon of 22 books. An example:
CYRIL Catechetical Lecture 4 Paragraph 33:

Learn diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.

Interestingly, Cyril admonishes us to read the 22-book (Protestant) canon, using the Septuagint translation. He denies us five books, yet tells us to use the Greek scripture, indicating that he believed the Apocrypha added to the Septuagint was just that. How much information need be provided before a unanimous consent is proved?

Irenaeus, though he appeals to a tradition, says these strong words before doing so:
Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 2:

When they [gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition: that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but ‘viva voce’, by the ‘living voice’.

He says it is the gnostics who proclaim a “living voice”, that the truth was not delivered by written documents (in this context: the Scriptures). The gnostics were the ones who called Scripture ambiguous, and that we could not extract truth from them without a sort of holy tradition of hearsay! This is amazing.

After listing what is now the Protestant Canon as the canon of Scripture of the Church of his day, Athanasius says:
Festal Letter 39 section 6:

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.

There is no context; that’s the entire section. He moves on to other topics after this.

Basil of Caesarea, a glorious jewel in the Church’s glittering crown, said:
Moralia (the rules) Rule 80 section 22:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

Cyril of Jerusalem, again:
Catechetical Lecture 4 section 17:

Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Again, there is no larger context which might have been snipped out by me. He speaks about the faith itself. It’s on NewAdvent; go and read it, I beg you.

Augustine:
Letter 140:

Love to read the sacred Letters, and you will not find many things to ask of me. By reading and meditating, if you pray wholeheartedly to God, the Giver of all good things, you will learn all that is worth knowing, or at least you will learn more under His inspiration than through the instruction of any man.

This was in the context of Scripture itself.

Cyril of Alexandria, as late as the A.D. 440s:
Doctrinal Question II:

How can one clearly explain what holy writ has not stated clearly? For example it is written in the book of Genesis that in the beginning God made heaven and earth. Holy writ declared that he has made it and we accept this truth in faith. But meddlesome inquiry into the means, origin or method whereby heaven, earth and the rest of creation were brought into being has its harmful side, for there is no need to involve the mind in profundities. What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.

The context is provided there.

I need not quote any more Fathers here, as the post is over-long. I promise all of you reading here that I have no ill-intent. I was very happy to be a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic roman Church before I read these. Their words give a very long-lived, consistent, broad historical proof that these great men would not be able to agree with putting “Sacred Tradition” on par with Sacred Scripture.

Though many of these are private letters and works of the Fathers, that does not invalidate them as historical sources. I think there is simply no ancient proof, private or otherwise, for the Roman Catholic position on revelation.

A BLESSED SUNDAY to you all.

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger, The Psalmist was not “an infallible man”; God is infallible, and illuminates and inspires those whom He wishes to inspire in the communication of absolute truth. Just wanted to make a little correction.

joe370:

I am confused, joe, as to why you do not believe that the charism of infallibility cannot apply to those who wrote the Scriptures?

You posited, “Couldn’t we just assume that all the writers of scripture were fallible men who wrote infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit?”

And that, of course, is exactly what the Church means by infallibility.

Thus, if you agree with Aefensang that men can not be infallible, how is it that you understand the charism of infallibility?

 

[PRmerger]

But generally, I would say that fallible men can write infallible Scripture if and only if God also writes Scripture.

Certainly.

And that is the exact paradigm that the Church applies to Herself. She is infallible if and only if God (that is, the Holy Spirit) assists her.

When you view it in this way, do you have a problem with the concept of men being infallible?

 

[Aefensang]

She is infallible if and only if God (that is, the Holy Spirit) assists her.

When you view it in this way, do you have a problem with the concept of men being infallible?

Just to answer for myself, I have a problem with the concept of men being infallible once our rule of faith has been established for all time. There is simply no need for the infallible character to continue, given that our golden rule was set.

Take the Old Testament for an example; Elijah spoke infallibly, and whoever recorded Elijah’s words was writing infallibly, for that was God’s will. What about everyone in-between Elijah and his writer? Were any teachers infallible in the times between prophets? The Pharisees and people like them certainly were not infallible, after the age of prophets ended. Infallibility does not have to be universal and eternal simply because it was needed for a time.

Anyway, my last post before this one is my true testament.

 

[PRmerger]

Just to answer for myself, I have a problem with the concept of men being infallible once our rule of faith has been established for all time.

That, Aefensang, is a man-made tradition.

You, again, heard someone say it.

Who heard someone else say it.

But no one ever read that “men can be infallible during a certain period of time, but that charism ceased once [fill in the blank] occurred.”

There is simply no need for the infallible character to continue, given that our golden rule was set.

I think the existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that* their* understanding of the golden rule of Scripture is the correct one is a testament to the FALSE nature of the above.

Now, thanks to the belief that there is no further claims to infallibility, there are millions of Christians who don’t know whether…

baptism is a sacrament, or an ordinance…
the Lord’s day is Sunday or Saturday…
divorce and re-marriage is adultery, or just another hard choice…
the priesthood is male-only, or women may be ordained…
the Eucharist is the Real Presence, or it’s merely a symbol…
Mary remained a Perpetual Virgin, or she had other children…
we may lose our salvation, or OSAS…



Yes, the denial of the charism of infallibility is something the Author of Chaos and Confusion has rejoiced in. :sad_yes:

 

[SteveVH]

Not a divorce. Henry sought what was commonplace in his day, at his level of of society, a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine.

As with history in general, it’s a complicated story.

GKC

Yes, of course I have over-simplified the issue. Aefensang claims to have information from the ECF’s that pursuaded him to leave the Catholic Church and become Anglican. My point is that the Anglican Church did not originate based upon some theological difference, but rather due to the activities of Henry, VIII, regardless of how complicated the situation may be. So, if the information gleaned from the writing of the ECF’s somehow proves that the Anglican Church is preferable to the Catholic Church in terms of possessing truth, I would really like to see it, thats all.

 

[Aefensang]

That, Aefensang, is a man-made tradition.

You, again, heard someone say it.

Who heard someone else say it.

But no one ever read that “men can be infallible during a certain period of time, but that charism ceased once [fill in the blank] occurred.”

I think the existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that* their* understanding of the golden rule of Scripture is the correct one is a testament to the FALSE nature of the above.

Now, thanks to the belief that there is no further claims to infallibility, there are millions of Christians who don’t know whether…

baptism is a sacrament, or an ordinance…
the Lord’s day is Sunday or Saturday…
divorce and re-marriage is adultery, or just another hard choice…
the priesthood is male-only, or women may be ordained…
the Eucharist is the Real Presence, or it’s merely a symbol…
Mary remained a Perpetual Virgin, or she had other children…
we may lose our salvation, or OSAS…



Yes, the denial of the charism of infallibility is something the Author of Chaos and Confusion has rejoiced in. :sad_yes:

Friend, we can continue arguing about individual issues, but Tradition & Scripture are the lynchpin of differences between Rome & Protestants. If tradition is not sacred, none of these other things matter to the argument; if tradition is sacred, it may say whatever it wants and it must be followed. We should stick to that issue, not go off on side routes.

That being said:

Baptism is clearly for our salvation, as in John 3 and many other places.

The Law was fulfilled by the Lord, and at the Last Supper (not the Sabbath) He gave no specific day for the celebration of His Holy Supper.

Divorce is strictly forbidden in the Sermon on the Mount.

Paul says women should never be over men in authority, and that women must keep silent in church. This precludes female priesthood entirely.

The Eucharist is clearly “My Body & My Blood”. Only a soul (and divine spirit, in the Lord’s case) can inhabit a living Body. The nature of that body, however, is what we think on and reason about. There is not just “The Real Presence” vs. “A mere symbol” - that is pure simplification. Calvinists & the CoE traditionally believed that Jesus is really present in the bread & wine after consecration; Lutherans believed it was 100% bread and 100% the flesh of Christ; there is more nuance among even the Roman Catholic schoolmen on the subject than among any protestants.

Mary clearly had other children, because the noun for “Brothers” (i.e. His mother and brothers came to see Him) in the Greek of Matthew & Luke, is the noun for “those of the same womb”. It’s there, for all to see.

Salvation is clearly easily lost in our sins and lack of faith, as Deuteronomy says “I put before you life & death, etc.”

Those who deny these things almost always give, as their reason, that Scripture is not trustworthy or it was faked or it isn’t binding on us. None of these are Protestant assertions, but individualist errors.

Yes, of course I have over-simplified the issue. Aefensang claims to have information from the ECF’s that pursuaded him to leave the Catholic Church and become Anglican. My point is that the Anglican Church did not originate based upon some theological difference, but rather due to the activities of Henry, VIII, regardless of how complicated the situation may be.

You are actually not correct, historically. Henry VIII may have separated from Rome physically, but theologically he was entirely a Roman Catholic. Mary re-united the Church of England to Rome in 1554, and it was separated again in 1559 by Elizabeth. The true unbroken Protestant Anglican theology was defined more and more from 1560 onward. The entity of Henry VIII was different from that of Elizabeth I. We are not talking about the same system in 1533 and 1560.

So, if the information gleaned from the writing of the ECF’s somehow proves that the Anglican Church is preferable to the Catholic Church in terms of possessing truth, I would really like to see it, thats all.

See post #580 in this thread for a rudimentary beginning to that proof.

 

[PRmerger]

Friend, we can continue arguing about individual issues, but Tradition & Scripture are the lynchpin of differences between Rome & Protestants. If tradition is not sacred, none of these other things matter to the argument; if tradition is sacred, it may say whatever it wants and it must be followed. We should stick to that issue, not go off on side routes.

So you’ll have to explain how it is that you accept the Sacred Tradition that declared for you that 3 John is theopneustos but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

How do you know this, except through tacit acknowledgement of the authority of Tradition?

 

[PRmerger]

The perception is that it is hypocritical – don’t understand how two people could be married for 15 years with a household have 3 kids, etc. and then have a decree that the marriage never existed.

The decree says that the sacrament never occurred. God did not join them. Man did.

I hope you can entertain the possibility, given an understanding of what occurs at the sacraments at a theological level, that it’s entirely plausible that a couple could have lived together for 15 years, had 3 kids and never were truly joined.

 

[Aefensang]

So you’ll have to explain how it is that you accept the Sacred Tradition that declared for you that 3 John is theopneustos but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

How do you know this, except through tacit acknowledgement of the authority of Tradition?

Yup, this is the gist of the whole thing.

The one answer is: archeology, by the Church Fathers. It wasn’t sacred mysterious oral tradition, but simple godly love of truth, leading them on in research. “Barnabus” WAS cited as canon at first, by Clement of Alexandria and others, and then discarded. If Sacred Tradition was responsible for this, either it erred in accepting Barnabus, or it erred it throwing Barnabus out. Infallibility doesn’t change its mind like that.

The Fathers learned as they went forward, by diligence, ingenuity, and the guidance of the Spirit. Once the Scripture was formed, the grace which this task needed was necessarily at an end.

This is the Anglican theory. Rome puts forward its own theory. Which will you believe? You must use private judgment to do so. Going to tradition for salvific truth only begs the question more strongly, in my opinion. I believe history bears out the Anglican conclusion, and Rome’s only proof is its own assertions.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveH,

1. Paul explicitly refers to Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. At least to the Apostle, the authoritative New Testament was certainly extant already in some little way.

Yet you can only speculate as to what was considered “the authoritative New Testament” in Paul’s time. What about books that Paul may not have even seen? Revelation comes to mind, as well as some of the epistles. You are reading a lot into this and making assumptions based upon assumptions.

I don’t feel that it has yet been made sufficiently clear to me that both Scripture and tradition are the word of God.

Or, it may have been made suffiently clear and you just refuse to accept it.

That is a very lofty claim, especially given the amount of times the Lord Jesus has harsh words about tradition. In 2 Thessalonians, when Paul does exhort the church to keep his oral traditions, he uses the word paradosis - the same word Christ used to describe the false teachings of the Pharisees. Just an interesting point to think on…

I’m quiet certain that you have been taught the difference between Sacred Tradition and having turkey for thanksgiving. Sacred Tradition, by its very nature, preceded the New Testament writings. All truth received from Christ by the Apostles was found in the oral teachings, the liturgies, the very life of the Church. Part of that truth was committed to writing and declared “inspired” by the Church. The fact that many of the New Testament writings were circulating in the Church prior to being officially canonized does not do away with the fact that most people were illiterate and there were no printing presses. They received the Gospel through oral Tradition and liturgical practices and the Church was guarded from error by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of scripture.

1. Indeed, not one syllable uttered by our Lord & Saviour was in vain. John does confirm that more has been said and done by Christ than can be recorded in any books, and yet the same author also says that Gospel was written that its readers may have life in the name of the one they believe in.

That doesn’t mean that they will not receive truth from Sacred Tradition as well. If John is saying that his Gospel is all that is required for salvation then he is also saying that the remainder of the Bible is not necessary. That is not what he meant concerning the rest of the Bible and it is not what he meant concerning Sacred Tradition.

I’ve got to get to rehearsal for Mass this evening so I’ll have to respond to the rest of your post later.

God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m quiet certain that you have been taught the difference between Sacred Tradition and having turkey for thanksgiving.

'zactly.

There are way too many ex-Catholics who seem to think that Sacred Tradition is what Tevye sang about while a fiddler strutted on a rooftop. “It’s just the way we’ve always done things!”

If that’s the ex-Catholic’s understanding, no wonder he doesn’t believe that it’s “on a par” with Sacred Scripture!

Part of that truth was committed to writing and declared “inspired” by the Church.

Indeed.

And we know from the Scriptures that it simply couldn’t be all contained to the written word.

For do we not read in Acts that Paul stayed in the synagogue and preached for 3 months?

And entering into the synagogue, **he spoke boldly for the space of three months, **disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.—Acts 19:8

Paul’s preaching simply could not be contained in the Scriptures—too much to write if he spoke for 3 months!

If only we could have been privy to EVERYTHING that Paul proclaimed. Would we not sit, baited breath, at his feet wanting to hear every single iota of the gospel as he proclaimed it? What he wrote surely was not all he knew.

Oh, wait! We are indeed privy to that which Paul proclaimed but was not put to writ.

That is, if we are cognizant of the Sacred Tradition of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

 

[GKC]

Friend, we can continue arguing about individual issues, but Tradition & Scripture are the lynchpin of differences between Rome & Protestants. If tradition is not sacred, none of these other things matter to the argument; if tradition is sacred, it may say whatever it wants and it must be followed. We should stick to that issue, not go off on side routes.

That being said:

Baptism is clearly for our salvation, as in John 3 and many other places.

The Law was fulfilled by the Lord, and at the Last Supper (not the Sabbath) He gave no specific day for the celebration of His Holy Supper.

Divorce is strictly forbidden in the Sermon on the Mount.

Paul says women should never be over men in authority, and that women must keep silent in church. This precludes female priesthood entirely.

The Eucharist is clearly “My Body & My Blood”. Only a soul (and divine spirit, in the Lord’s case) can inhabit a living Body. The nature of that body, however, is what we think on and reason about. There is not just “The Real Presence” vs. “A mere symbol” - that is pure simplification. Calvinists & the CoE traditionally believed that Jesus is really present in the bread & wine after consecration; Lutherans believed it was 100% bread and 100% the flesh of Christ; there is more nuance among even the Roman Catholic schoolmen on the subject than among any protestants.

Mary clearly had other children, because the noun for “Brothers” (i.e. His mother and brothers came to see Him) in the Greek of Matthew & Luke, is the noun for “those of the same womb”. It’s there, for all to see.

Salvation is clearly easily lost in our sins and lack of faith, as Deuteronomy says “I put before you life & death, etc.”

Those who deny these things almost always give, as their reason, that Scripture is not trustworthy or it was faked or it isn’t binding on us. None of these are Protestant assertions, but individualist errors.

You are actually not correct, historically. Henry VIII may have separated from Rome physically, but theologically he was entirely a Roman Catholic. Mary re-united the Church of England to Rome in 1554, and it was separated again in 1559 by Elizabeth. The true unbroken Protestant Anglican theology was defined more and more from 1560 onward. The entity of Henry VIII was different from that of Elizabeth I. We are not talking about the same system in 1533 and 1560.

See post #580 in this thread for a rudimentary beginning to that proof.

Henry began, early, to drift off the farm, in a number of areas. He became an early advocate of “all can, none must”, with respect to auricular confession, engaged in some rank ordering of the sacraments, with a suspicion of conformation and extreme unction, was weak on Holy Orders, and a few other things. This was circa 1536-1543.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

a lack of acceptance of other denominations. Many mainstream denominations, like Methodist, Presbyterian, etc, don’t think of them selves as the one true church, and find such an attitude arrogant.

Let’s set aside the “lack of acceptance of another denomination” concept for now and I will just cede, for the sake of this argument, that Catholics do indeed not “accept” other denominations.

How is that, really, any different than what Christians do to other religions–such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc etc etc?

and everyone else is “wrong” on some level is perceived as an stuck up attitude.

Is not the Catholic position really only an extension of that which Christianity proclaims? Do you think that it’s not arrogant-sounding to Jews to hear Christians say that they are wrong and that we have the truth and that He is Jesus Christ?

So, I respectfully ask, why do you get to have this paradigm with respect to Muslims, but Catholics aren’t allowed this same paradigm with respect to other Christian denominations?