I’d be guessing but all Protestants deny the Pope’s infallible leadership as well as the EO, at least on the issue of infallibility.
Say what?? You’re kidd’n right? Whahow’d
that happen??
LOL!
Specifically the Episcopalian Church does. The authority would be the same as your’s…men interpreting scripture.
“Men interpreting scripture??”
Now what good is that? Why, that’s precisely what heretics are all about - “men interpreting scripture -
endlessly!” They are “forever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:7
Maybe that’s your idea of “authority,” but it is most certainly not mine, nor is it Scripture’s.
I am speaking of my faith tradition. Reasonable minds differ on how to apply the bible to situations never before the early writers of the NT.
“Reasonable minds differ.”
Ah yes, indeed they do! And that’s the problem - in a nutshell!
“Reasonable minds differ.”
And because they differ, they can thus never hope to come to an agreement on what the bible means or how it should be applied. But such doctrinal chaos is, sadly, the very definition of Protestantism!
Now, a
truly “reasonable” mind would recognize and acknowledge this glaring fact, and conclude from it that the notion of “men interpreting scripture,” without a teacher, without a guide, is but a false doctrine of men, utterly devoid of merit.
You call them heretical, I may call them following the true church.
No, *I *don’t call them heretical – the
true Church does, and has,
for two thousand years!
The Magisterium is like any manmade institution, subject to error.
Man-made? My friend, have you forgotten that:
a. The apostles were themselves a Magisterium?
b. That they taught infallibly?
c. That the first Christians had recourse to this infallible, living teaching authority?
d. That such an infallible, living, teaching authority represents the
Biblical pattern?
e. That the Scriptures themselves record not a singe instance of anyone, anywhere, “privately interpreting” the Scriptures?
It’s a mighty nifty trick to define yourself out of error by claiming exclusive possession of the Holy Spirit.
Never made such a claim; you must be thinking of Luther or Calvin or any number of their benighted followers!!
How so? He guides his church…the universal church, remember it? Christendom?
But then, was he guiding his Church *before *the reformation?
I agree it is possible to come to truth about some things, but to suggest that it is a done deal is to deny that we are growing in faith and understanding.
Do you really believe that Protestantism is “growing in faith and understanding?” On the contrary, if anything, history proves it has only become more tragically confused, contradictory, and divided than it was in its unfortunate beginning! But perhaps you have never read the reformers and what they had to say about the countless divisions they themselves had caused? Listen to Calvin for example:
Nor, in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to our posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world.
Letter to Philip Melanchthon, November 28, 1552. (yep, a couple of really honest, really honorable souls, those two!!
)
Letters of John Calvin, Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, 1857, Edinburgh, Thomas Constable, vol. 2, p. 361.
books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=%22Nor,+in+truth,+is+it+of+little+importance+to+prevent+the+suspicion+%22&source=bl&ots=WqjodUVOrA&sig=csILOI1FVlt79ZLd5SmfPlrMf-0&hl=en&ei=G2_ZSd_7BIa0NJbbhYQP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Truth continues to unfold and be refined in my opinion.
Hmmm… sort of a *development of doctrine *kind of thing, you might say?
LOL!
But why do I complain of the disparagement of priests and of the sacraments, when almost everything is torn to pieces by them, spat upon in contempt, and put up to public ridicule? ‘There is no pope,’ the say, ‘no king, and lastly, no bishop or priest.’…
There are many churches, moreover, where they consider it not only improper for them to enter, but where they judge them unworthy of paying them their respect. For they disdain to pay honor to churches dedicated by bishops who for some reason they considered unworthy…
But since Paul, who had previously been caught up to the third heaven, (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2) did not refuse to appear before Nero, what monk can be so proud of his holiness that he dare condemn the decision of the Apostolic See, where, to be sure, attention is paid, not a man’s deserts, but to the regulations governing ecclesiastical office?
These monks reach their decision on street corners, and defame the jurisdiction of synods. They pass judgment on monks, disparage everything that smacks of clerics, and are careful not to offend laymen who, indeed, deserve to be more sharply and bitterly censured. Should they see a monk approaching, they will say, "Look, here comes one of those scapulars.” -p. 163.
Peter Daminan, Letter 146 (Lent, A. D. 1067)
The Letters of Peter Damian, 121-150 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation), Owen J. Blum O.F.M., tr., 2004, ISBN 081321372X
- but lurkers might not. This post is for them.