Question for all protestants

[JonNC]

You caught my use of the past tense. Busted!

Well, I’m of the opinion that… If he would allow the Gospel, his superiority over the bishops which he has otherwise, is conceded to him by human right also by us, for the sake of the peace and general unity of those Christians who are also under him, and may be under him hereafter.

At least, I wouldn’t have a problem saying that. I think it is also true that the good and godly men who have held the office in recent decades have, more often than not, spoken for orthodox Christianity - using their high visibility as a witness for Christ and, in effect, acting as a “head” of sorts of a sadly visibly-divided Christendom.

Nice quote, btw.

We are caught, as seemingly usual, in that odd middle that few protestants venture into.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose the question is similar to one posed a few centuries back. What made a Franciscan theologian right over say a Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate conception debate before it was official dogma ? What did Catholics do back then, for both views were acceptable ?

They deferred to the Church, as we do today.

So when the Church said, “We have not discerned yet whether the Shepherd of Hermas is theopneustos”, Catholics read the epistle at their liturgies.

But when the S of H was discerned to be not inspired, it was removed from the Liturgy of the Word.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What is there to make of it?

He was the Head of All the Churches. The Primacy of Honor belonged to him, in that Rome was a special Patriarchate with a special connection to the leader of the Apostles and the epicenter of the Roman World.

In a more practical way, every human-operated organization requires some sort of structure to function. Yes, the church was founded by Christ, but He didn’t establish a complex hierarchy of priests, archpriests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchates, complete with canon and liturgical laws, etc. So it is necessary that the Church should have a leader - it’s only logical that this should be the very special bishop in Rome.

That does not mean he has universal immediate jurisdiction or supreme power over doctrine, faith or morals. He is human.

Hmmmm

I just cannot seem to get my head around what purpose a primacy of honor serves?

It seems like ultimately for the church to work there needs to be a head.

Someone to call councils , someone to unite the Bishops together, and someone to arbitrate when the Bishops need arbitration.

Just like a judge has supreme authority to settle a dispute , so too the Bishop of Rome. And if the Holy Spirit (not the man) but the Holy Spirit,guards that office, then how can we argue.

Is there an example if the pope exercising this supreme “infallible” ex cathedra statements to in anyway proclaim something that was not in question?

 

[pocohombre]

They deferred to the Church, as we do today.

So when the Church said, “We have not discerned yet whether the Shepherd of Hermas is theopneustos”, Catholics read the epistle at their liturgies.

But when the S of H was discerned to be not inspired, it was removed from the Liturgy of the Word.

Hi PR. I thought the question is what do you do when the Church tells you, take your pick we don’t know yet ? I am sure as you say when S o H was ruled not inspired/canon most stopped reading it liturgically. But I don’t think all read it before in liturgy if some already thought it may not be inspired. How did individual churches decide on the matter, when they had the freedom to read or not read ? Don’t you think individuals and churches discerned for themselves, when the church said they could ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi PR. I thought the question is what do you do when the Church tells you, take your pick we don’t know yet ? I am sure as you say when S o H was ruled not inspired/canon most stopped reading it liturgically .But I don’t think all read it before in liturgy if some already thought it may not be. How did individual churches decide on the matter, when they had the freedom to read or not read ? Don’t you think individuals and churches discerned for themselves, when the church said they could ?

Yes the BISHOPS not individual churches decided for themselves. This still happens today. There are things that the church has not ruled definitively on and as such may or may not be practiced/ taught at the discretion of the Bishop.

That says nothing of the fact that once called into question or asked/needed to rule on the matter the church has the power to do so by the keys given Peter by Christ.

Now how often has that been done without any consultation of the Bishops and/or lay faithful

Zero

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Quite simply they make the best decision they can and think is right.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR. I thought the question is what do you do when the Church tells you, take your pick we don’t know yet ?

Is it your position that this is what the Church said regarding the IC?

 

[rinnie]

Hi PR. I thought the question is what do you do when the Church tells you, take your pick we don’t know yet ? I am sure as you say when S o H was ruled not inspired/canon most stopped reading it liturgically. But I don’t think all read it before in liturgy if some already thought it may not be inspired. How did individual churches decide on the matter, when they had the freedom to read or not read ? Don’t you think individuals and churches discerned for themselves, when the church said they could ?

I never heard the Church say take your pick we don’t know yet. While I agree the Church can only teach what is revealed by the H.S. if the Church does not know the answer it was not revealed yet.

But the Church does have ALL of the truth that was revealed by Christ. And if there is anything else we need to know Christ will reveal it through the Church when he feels its time for us to hear it.

He told us to listen to the Church.

 

[MJWilsonTN]

Your question comes down to one of “by who’s authority.” For high protestant churches this is probably not as big an issue as for fundamentalist. Fundamentalist will refer to scripture as the foundation and pillar of the truth. But what does scripture say? Read 1 Timothy 3:15. It states that the “church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Once one understands that the truth is entrusted to the church one must start asking “which church.” Remember all religious traditions, even non-Christian, contain some portion of the truth but one must search for the entire truth…

 

[pocohombre]

Yes the BISHOPS not individual churches decided for themselves. This still happens today. There are things that the church has not ruled definitively on and as such may or may not be practiced/ taught at the discretion of the Bishop.
That says nothing of the fact that once called into question or asked/needed to rule on the matter the church has the power to do so by the keys given Peter by Christ.
Now how often has that been done without any consultation of the Bishops and/or lay faithful
Zero

I guess you aren’t married otherwise you would know the quicksand that it is to say “never” or “always” or zippo, zero, nada during “debate”. Besides, “any consultation of the bishops or lay people” is vague. But I know what you mean, he is not a dictator, usually, and big stuff is done with councils,usually, but not always.

 

[pocohombre]

Your question comes down to one of “by who’s authority.” For high protestant churches this is probably not as big an issue as for fundamentalist. Fundamentalist will refer to scripture as the foundation and pillar of the truth. But what does scripture say? Read 1 Timothy 3:15. It states that the “church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Once one understands that the truth is entrusted to the church one must start asking “which church.” Remember all religious traditions, even non-Christian, contain some portion of the truth but one must search for the entire truth…

I would consider myself a fundamentalist and scripture is authoratative and a pillar of truth for sure, as even you would agree (with the caveat that it is not alone with you, having tradition as it’s equal). However "pillar of truth’ is a biblical term to describe the church, as you would also agree (with the caveat you say it is the CC). I can’t recall ever using that phrase towards scripture, however. For the church to be the pillar of truth she must be “biblical”, and to the extent that she is, she is “a pillar of truth”.
No church has all perfection, hence the term “full” is what the world calls “Utopian”. Don’t think it is biblical and I know you have your scriptural interpretations that say otherwise. We are perfect to the extent we are properly aligned with God’s truth, and only “then” and in the hereafter, will we be like Him and know as He knows. Yet John says we “know all things” in this dispensation (guess the next one will be even better).

 

[PRmerger]

I would consider myself a fundamentalist and scripture is authoratative and a pillar of truth for sure,

Saying that Scripture is a pillar of truth is in direct contradiction of Scripture which says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And saying that Scripture is authoritative is also something not found in Scripture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I guess you aren’t married otherwise you would know the quicksand that it is to say “never” or “always” or zippo, zero, nada during “debate”. Besides, “any consultation of the bishops or lay people” is vague. But I know what you mean, he is not a dictator, usually, and big stuff is done with councils,usually, but not always.

I was married. Maybe I did say always and never too much.

Mostly councils, but even things like the assumption of Mary was done with a lot of consultation of others.

I am pretty confident of saying there are zero times he said something like a dictator or that went contrary to the Catholic consensus at least among bishops.

 

[pocohombre]

Saying that Scripture is a pillar of truth is in direct contradiction of Scripture which says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Pr, You are to quick, I just posted it .But you twist my words and take it out of context .My post said “don’t recall using that phrase towards scripture” so why do you bite when we both agree ? Are you denying that scripture is “a ’ pillar of truth” ? You are a good literary critic and is there not meaningful differences with the articles of "the " and “a”, as in "the "pillar and “a” pillar ?

And saying that Scripture is authoritative is also something not found in Scripture.

So scripture is not authoratative by her own words ? That is like saying Clement’s letter to the Corinthinians did not say it was authoratative . They both are by their own writing. I think what you mean is what I posted, that scripture is authoratative for CC but alongside with Sacred Tradition equally…and I think CC says both are found in scripture ( though "equal’ is not found and where I humbly depart ).

 

[pocohombre]

Is it your position that this is what the Church said regarding the IC?

Yes,during the past 2000 years. Was Aquinas censured by Rome for his thoughts on the matter ? Don’t think so but not sure. I thought the thing was debated for a few centuries, and all that was censured was the heated mudslinging and anathema throwings that occurred from time to time (esp. between Dominicans and Augustinians or Franciscans ?) Again, all I am saying is that there was freedom of choice and thought on the matter for a “time”.

 

[pocohombre]

I never heard the Church say take your pick we don’t know yet.

Wasn’t Jerome and Augustine Catholic? Yes, that is my paraphrasing, street lingo ,but pretty much says how it is.

He told us to listen to the Church

. Hmmm, I know what you mean but…is it, "“My sheep know the CC voice” or is it, “My sheep know my voice” ?
While Augustine acknowledges the church and the preacher (Ambrose) , he also acknowledged that He (Christ) teaches us. A bit like “divinely taught, divinely caught”. You must listen to what the Spirit of God says whether speaking thru nature, or your parents or spouse or friend or teacher/pastor /bishop, church, scripture, etc., etc., etc…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You must listen to what the Spirit of God says whether speaking thru nature, or your parents or spouse or friend or teacher/pastor /bishop, church, scripture, etc., etc., etc…

Would the Spirit of God want all the division we have? With each different denomination believing they are hearing the Spirit of God even when they are radically different in their interpretations?

You have to draw a line somewhere. This is where divine authority comes in, exercised by the Church. One Church, not many.

 

[pocohombre]

Would the Spirit of God want all the division we have? With each different denomination believing they are hearing the Spirit of God even when they are radically different in their interpretations?
You have to draw a line somewhere. This is where divine authority comes in, exercised by the Church. One Church, not many.

It is ironic that with all the divisions outside of Rome, they can at least all say there is salvation also in the others, a true universalism, without any double talk (no interior “battle” over it) . Lord help that wall to come down. From post#67 “A Stranger asks…”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is ironic that with all the divisions outside of Rome, they can at least all say there is salvation also in the others, a true universalism, without any double talk (no interior “battle” over it) . Lord help that wall to come down. From post#67 “A Stranger asks…”

Say hello to post # 68.

 

[Scitor]

So your an expert over infant baptism. Sir, you have to understand that the Catholic Church has baptized infants since the beginning of times. You feel that you know all the answers with your Church but your wrong. The Catholic Church has done it for 2000 yrs and it has been doing it right. If you guys as Evangelicals didn’t try to reinvent the wheel, the World, especially Christians would be better of.

Another one, you guys teach once saved always saved, that goes against scripture. So before you come pointing the finger at the Catholic Church look what you have inside. If I were you I would the Early Church Fathers. They were taught by the Apostles, what they taught, preached, and wrote down is a lot more like Catholic teachings than Evangelicals.

First, given you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.” If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

Not trying to pick a fight or point fingers. Just laying out the facts. As far as OSAS, well, it is very biblical, but I want go into it unless you ask.