Question for all protestants

[JRKH]

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God - and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status - assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

Two points here if I may…

1. How does the Church “repudiate” something that did not exist until 1500 years after the founding of the Church?
   Now maybe I’m not fully understanding the meaning of “repudiate”…but to me, I see the Church not buying into a novel and unbiblical “new” idea.
   During the first 1500 years of Christianity - both East and West - there was no Sola Scriptura…
2. As a Sola Scripturist - what do you then do with the fact that the Scripture itself points to the Church as authority?
   Even if one starts from a position of Scripture being the “sole source” of the word of God, one is left with Christ’s own words saying that whatever the Church binds is bound and whatever the Church looses is loosed. You have Jesus saying that we should “tell it to the Church”, and listen to the Church. You have Jesus praying that we be one - and you see the Apostles in their letters exhorting the faithful to a profound “oneness of mind”.

Bottom line - Looking at the bible alone I can easily see the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church…

Peace
James

 

[Per_Crucem]

Lutherans and protestants, generally. Sorry, I wasn’t clear.

On your list,
Infant baptism.
Ordination of women.
Real Presence v. Symbolic Commemoration.
Baptismal Regeneration.
Eternal Security.
Predestination of the Elect.
The Rapture,
we are on opposite sides of most, if not all of these.

Jon

I would second that.

The differences between Lutherans and other Protestants is far greater than the differences between Lutherans and Catholics/Orthodox in general. The closest to us would be the Anglicans, but even that depends on whether the Anglican is more Catholic on the sacraments or Reformed.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).

After seeing your interaction with some of the lovely Orthodox posters around these parts, we’re probably closer to you than they are

 

[1mark23]

hello- i enjoy going to different non catholic churches because – when the preacher or teacher is anointed by the Holy Spirit then-- you receive the “wittness of the Spirit” that Saint Paul talks about in Romans chapter 8, that the Spirit bears wittness --we are in the body.

and when there is no spiritual witness then – it’s a preacher or teacher – giving a lecture of the bible or a history lesson–

but also when they give a testemony and a prophetice work- or application-- of applying the word of God – this allowes the believer to advance in the spirit –

and again – it is good to be able to recognize – when a word is for you-- or when a message word is not for you–

i also get energized when by laying on hands-- you get a spiritual impartation–

which as some express as being “drunk in the spirit” as Saint Paul talks about–

So there are a lot of Positive ways that the spiritual truth of the bible and it’s teaching is taught and imparted–

 

[rinnie]

I would second that.

The differences between Lutherans and other Protestants is far greater than the differences between Lutherans and Catholics/Orthodox in general. The closest to us would be the Anglicans, but even that depends on whether the Anglican is more Catholic on the sacraments or Reformed.

Here is what I have been told. THe further the Church is from the Catholic Church the further it is from the truth.

It makes sense also because you are right the Lutherans and Catholics have probally the most in common. THen the Church that broke off with them have less in common with the Catholic Church but more with Lutherans. Etc.

 

[1mark23]

hello is saw this and wondered about the sader meal-- because as a western culture – it appear that it is different than the Jesish understanding of the “last supper”

But Jesus made it Clear in John 6, he said at least 5 times I am the Bread, remember God is everywhere.

If we look at the last supper he grabbed bread and wine and said this is my body and this is my blood. It cannot be anymore clear.

6:38 pm
Randy Carson
Veteran Member Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: Diocese of Raleigh
Posts: 10,849
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism

Symbolism of the Seder Disproves Real Presence

---

In the course of an offline discussion with a Christian who believes the Lord’s Supper is purely symbolic, he made the following argument:

When Jesus and his disciples ate the Last Supper, they were celebrating the Passover. After all, they were all Jews, and they had celebrated Passover with the Seder meal all their lives – the bitter herbs dipped in salt water represent this, the unleavened bread represents that, etc. Everything about it is symbolic, and it’s all designed to remind the Jews of what God did for them when He brought them out of Egyptian bondage.

At the end of the ritual meal, which they all knew very well,

Jesus said, in effect, “Wait! We’re not done,”

and the disciples all wondered, “What is this? What is He doing?”

And then Jesus added the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup and said,

“This is My body, this is My blood.

Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Seen in that light, what Jesus did at the end of that Seder meal is clearly symbolic, and His words are not to be taken literally.
How would you respond to this argument?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

hello- i enjoy going to different non catholic churches because – when the preacher or teacher is anointed by the Holy Spirit then-- you receive the “wittness of the Spirit” that Saint Paul talks about in Romans chapter 8, that the Spirit bears wittness --we are in the body.

and when there is no spiritual witness then – it’s a preacher or teacher – giving a lecture of the bible or a history lesson–

but also when they give a testemony and a prophetice work- or application-- of applying the word of God – this allowes the believer to advance in the spirit –

and again – it is good to be able to recognize – when a word is for you-- or when a message word is not for you–

i also get energized when by laying on hands-- you get a spiritual impartation–

which as some express as being “drunk in the spirit” as Saint Paul talks about–

So there are a lot of Positive ways that the spiritual truth of the bible and it’s teaching is taught and imparted–

Oh, you’re back already?
What is this, your 25th or 26th username?
Does this “annointing” or yours give you free reign to use deception to get back on the forum?
Is that really what the Holy Spirit does?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Oh, one more thing, 1protestant .
You gonna take a screenshot of this and put it on your (how many is it now? 10?) blogs?

 

[Randy_Carson]

After seeing your interaction with some of the lovely Orthodox posters around these parts, we’re probably closer to you than they are

I have come to the same realization.

Unfortunately, they will see that as one more proof of the errors of Catholicism to be laid at the feet of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Here is what I have been told. THe further the Church is from the Catholic Church the further it is from the truth.

It makes sense also because you are right the Lutherans and Catholics have probally the most in common. THen the Church that broke off with them have less in common with the Catholic Church but more with Lutherans. Etc.

I wouldn’t agree with the latter. The Lutherans broke away from union with the Bishop of Rome and then you had the Reformed which also broke off from Rome, under the influence of Zwingli, Bucer, and later Calvin.

You also have the Anglicans which broke from Rome and the anabaptists that broke from Rome. None of them broke away from the Lutherans (realizing that Luther had some influence of the development of some Reformed thought).

Ultimately, though, the other groups have little to do with us theologically. The Reformed do not have more in common with us than we do with Catholics. Yes, they share our understanding of sola fide to some degree, but not even so much there, since they divorce sola fide from the sacraments.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I have come to the same realization.

Unfortunately, they will see that as one more proof of the errors of Catholicism to be laid at the feet of the Bishop of Rome.

Yes and they do, very vocally.

For our part, we have little response to that accusation, since we acknowledge that the Bishops of Rome are part of our theological heritage. We make no bones about the fact that we are Western in our thought and don’t particularly find Eastern thought attractive. Though we do have a closer understanding to them on the nature of the Eucharist (as mystery), church hierarchy, and incorporation of theosis (but even that descends from western thinking, esp. St. Augustine and St. Bernard of Clairveaux).

 

[Atheling]

Wow. Where to begin?

1. I agree that age has nothing to do with infallibility.
2. The lines of Apostolic Succession are not ambiguous.
3. The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, not Paul.

I was referring to the Apostolic Succession, I know who the earliest Bishop of Rome was. Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.

1. Divergence between popes? Clearly, you are ignorant about Catholic doctrine.

Each Pope has brought a different vision to the Catholic Church, and to argue that the past 2,000 years have been a study in total continuity with respect to theological interpretations is utterly ridiculous. Mind you, there might be consequences for a Pope who steps too far out of line, as John Paul I learned the hard way…

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less since your Church has neither.

Once again demonstrating that style trumps substance in Rome.

Oh? The Bible teaches that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer? You have a verse for this? (Hint: I wouldn’t be asking if I knew you did.)

The “tradition” that the Church views as on par with scripture is inferred, at best, and is thus vulnerable to human error. At the end of the day, the Bible is infallible; clergy and church institutions are not. As Wesley puts it: “In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church”.

God is the sole source of scripture, if that’s what you were trying to say. No Catholic would repudiate that. However, the Word of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I think you may be unfamiliar with that idea.

:yawn: See above.

What actually has me chuckling is your assertion about theological concepts about which you are clearly ignorant.

Please, don’t pretend that the Church doesn’t bestow divine powers on the Pope to go along with his authority, and that’s without factoring in the other non-scriptural powers other high-ranking clergy and the milieu of “saints” seem to be afforded.

Can you define for me what infallibility means in Catholic theology?

That the Church cannot err due to the source of its authority. Although I suspect you’ll take issue with that as I find that Catholics are generally quite slippery on this issue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was referring to the Apostolic Succession, I know who the earliest Bishop of Rome was. Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.

That was good.

Each Pope has brought a different vision to the Catholic Church, and to argue that the past 2,000 years have been a study in total continuity with respect to theological interpretations is utterly ridiculous. Mind you, there might be consequences for a Pope who steps too far out of line, as John Paul I learned the hard way…

Different vision? Okay. Different popes have different personal styles. They also emphasize different aspects of the gospel. Francis is emphasizing different aspects than those stressed by Benedict. But Francis is not teaching anything contradictory to doctrines taught by Benedict or any other pope. Surely you must see that.

The “tradition” that the Church views as on par with scripture is inferred, at best, and is thus vulnerable to human error. At the end of the day, the Bible is infallible; clergy and church institutions are not. As Wesley puts it: “In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church”.

And John Henry Newman, also of the same religious heritage as Wesley, came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church and the pope are infallible. Newman was a brilliant man, and his reasons for converting to Catholicism were based on far more than inferences.

Please, don’t pretend that the Church doesn’t bestow divine powers on the Pope to go along with his authority, and that’s without factoring in the other non-scriptural powers other high-ranking clergy and the milieu of “saints” seem to be afforded.

Um…okay. Could you describe some of these divine powers that I, as a Catholic, am supposed to accept in the pope?

That the Church cannot err due to the source of its authority. Although I suspect you’ll take issue with that as I find that Catholics are generally quite slippery on this issue.

Since the Church’s definitions on just about any theological matter are available for all to review, how “slippery” can any Catholic really be?

If you really want to know what the infallibility of the pope means you should go to the source, the definition by the ecumenical council of the Church at the Vatican on July 18, 1870. Here it is:

“It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra–that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine, concerning faith or morals, to be held by the universal Church–possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrines concerning faith or morals, and that definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, and not because of the agreement of the Church.”

Note what a limited gift this is. Infallibility simply guarantees that the teachings of the united Catholic episcopate and the definitions of the pope are free from error. God’s revelation is safeguarded. Human minds can work on it, discuss it, study it, explain it, draw conclusions from it, and still not destroy it. That is what matters most. God’s truth must be preserved. In studying that truth the human mind has abounding scope for its activity. But infallibility is there all the time to keep the truth untarnished. It is God’s wonderful device for reconciling the fallible activity of our minds and the infallible truth of the revelation he has made.

It is important to understand the conditions which must be fulfilled before the pope speaks infallibly. They should be studied carefully in the definition of the Vatican I. Once they are realized it is easy enough to see that if a pope, in his private teaching, for example, or in a letter to a bishop or group of bishops, or under any circumstances when not all the conditions for infallibility are fulfilled, teaches error, he may even be condemned as a heretic.

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

 

[benjohnson]

The adaptation is not because of their interpretation, but rather because they want to be more inclusive and liberal. It’s a joke.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this ‘inclusiveness’ is perhaps not because our Liberal friends really love and respect the homosexual acts of homosexual attracted people, it’s because they want to diminish the God given Law that to make their own sins (fornication, drug use, adultery et al) more palpable in their own eyes.

That if they can expand the circle of ‘good behavior’ to include same-sex hanky panky, then by default their own behavior would have to be considered ‘good.’

Just a thought I’ve been ruminating over.

 

[Artar1]

It would appear the OP’s questions were meant to elevate Catholicism at the expense of Protestantism by showing Protestantism to be inconsistent at best, and therefore fallible, making it unrepresentative of divine truth. Whereas, by implication, Catholicism is infallible due to 1) its direct link to Christ, who was infallible by definition, and 2) its consistency over the past 2,000 years because the Catholic Church follows Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium, whereas Protestantism does not.

In this context, the Sacred Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church in which the task of interpreting the Word of God is entrusted to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. To leave this task to anyone else would lead to immediate fallibility and error. Thus, Catholicism considers the laity, including Protestant ministers, to be incapable of divining the true Word of God—a task best left to the Pope and the Vatican.

From a practical standpoint, infallibility is the immunity from fallacy or liability to error of any kind in expounding upon matters of Christian faith and morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to Peter and the Church. Because of this divine promise, any Pope is preserved from the possibility of error (papal infallibility) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians. Moreover, because of his supreme apostolic authority, any Pope defines all doctrine concerning faith and morals for the entire Church. Of course, the infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

Please remember that any pope is now carefully chosen by the College of Cardinals whose members go through extensive soul searching, prayer, reading of Sacred Scripture, and divine revelation to arrive at their final decision. One could argue that this process is one of the most deliberative undertakings known to man, and is, in itself, infallible.

Yet, despite all of this infallibility, even the most casual observer would have to admit that the Catholic Church, led by past popes, has made some colossal blunders. Here are a few examples:

Holy Land Crusades

Pope Urban II authorized the First Crusade of 1095. Throughout the Crusades, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were killed because of Catholic Church involvement and approval.

Other Mass Killings

In 1209, Pope Innocent III preached crusade against French rebels. In 1572, about 20,000 Huguenots in France were killed on command of Pope Pius V.

Inquisition

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors during the Inquisition.

Slavery

St. Augustine argued that slavery was not absolutely forbidden by natural law. Thomas Aquinas argued the case for slavery subject to certain restrictions. Pope Paul III sanctioned the enslavement of baptized Christians in Rome. In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX. Pope Martin V authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this was coupled with a later bull (1441) that sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves.

To be fair, no fewer than twelve popes rightly condemned slavery. By doing so, however, these enlightened pontiffs were not in accord with other papal decisions, constituting, at the very least, papal inconsistency over time as the Catholic Church struggled with the issue of slavery.

Can we at least agree that the truth never changes; that is, what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow? For example, slavery should always be seen as wrong and immoral, and this position should never change if it’s true. If we can’t agree, then we are admitting that truth is mutable and subject to interpretation. In any event, perhaps the Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth after all, and maybe we have to admit that the Church has changed its mind on important matters, such as waging war on Islam, massacre, torture, and slavery, and will continue to do so, making the Church a fallible organization indeed.

 

[Porknpie]

At the end of the day, the Bible is infallible; clergy and church institutions are not.

Atheling, welcome to CAF. A bible can not be infallible, rather it is inspired and inerrant. Question for you is, how do you know that the books in your bible, 66 in all, are all inspired and inerrant ? And, how do you know that some books aren’t missing that should be in there?



PnP

 

[Artar1]

In case there’s any misunderstanding, I support Atheling’s position regarding the *fallibility *of the Catholic Church and the Popes who have led it over time.

 

[Atheling]

Atheling, welcome to CAF. A bible can not be infallible, rather it is inspired and inerrant. Question for you is, how do you know that the books in your bible, 66 in all, are all inspired and inerrant ? And, how do you know that some books aren’t missing that should be in there?



PnP

Scripture is infallible in that it cannot err; clergy are men and thus, by definition, cannot be infallible, and this includes the Pope. As for your question about missing books, I know what you’re implying, so I’ll clarify that the Church shouldn’t have been including the Apocryphal books to begin with. Luther, for example, cleaned out texts that we written centuries after Christ, and were thus of dubious reliability, so the move is actually wholly consistent, if not necessary, as per the principles of the Reformation.

 

[rinnie]

Not every Priest agrees with every Priest, and when they consult the Church there isn’t always a definitive answer. How is this different from Protestants?

Okay this Could be possible. Because even the Pope and his Bishops will tell you if the truth has not been revealed by the Holy Spirit yet its hasn’t been revealed.

But my question is dealing more with lets say myself. Lets say I am a Protestant and I travel to many Churchs and find thousands of different truths.

Then lets up the ante here. REALLY up it. I am a Protestant Preacher now. Whom do I go to. I want to go to the TOP now and find the truth. Whom do I go? Again if the truth has been revealed whom do I go?

And lets say I study the bible Forever. Could tell you any verse etc and tell you what it means. Am I correct?

Lets say I am one of the TOP Protestant Preachers, I am not sure if this is one, but lets say I am very very learned in scripture. VERY.

And I disagree with another very good Protestant Preacher, and we Both have such a GOOD answer for what Jesus is saying its impossible for the human mind to say who is right.

Where do I find truth??

My heart has never been more full of Love for any human being when I started this thread. It is something that has bothered me for my whole life. And I just need one skilled Protestant, rather a Preacher, Bishop etc to just give me ONE good answer. I have said this because I swear I did not start this to try to trick or nail any Protestant with the true answer they give me. I just need to know what the true answer is.

The best I have got was I believe from you. And God bless you. There is no way to find truth. You must pick which Protestant Preacher you choose to believe I guess. Or I guess reject both and find your own truth that you can live with.

But I am curious to see how this plays out. To see if I get any other answer then what you gave.

Again God bless you for being so kind and honest.

 

[rinnie]

I’ve come to the conclusion that this ‘inclusiveness’ is perhaps not because our Liberal friends really love and respect the homosexual acts of homosexual attracted people, it’s because they want to diminish the God given Law that to make their own sins (fornication, drug use, adultery et al) more palpable in their own eyes.

That if they can expand the circle of ‘good behavior’ to include same-sex hanky panky, then by default their own behavior would have to be considered ‘good.’

Just a thought I’ve been ruminating over.

Yes the Church calls this the works of the devil.

Kind of like if you work at a gas station and lets say you steal one gallon of gas everyday. Hey whats one gallon. But you are nervous as a cat.

But then you take 2 then 3 before you know it you been filling up for years. Then you think heck I am entitled. The first nervous as a cat feeling is completely gone.

Thats usually when you get caught. Another way the devil gets ya, then leaves ya hanging.

But lets try real hard to get back to my question.

I really need to hear a good answer. This has to be a good one out there.