Question for all protestants

[Novocastrian]

How does the fact that there are multiple Lions, Tigers and Bears

make it false that when we say, “Did the Fighting Irish win today?” we all know to whom we are referring??

Again, I would find it curious if, when a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church” you wouldn’t know what she means.

We all know that were you to direct her to my Church she would be satisfied.

I really don’t think you’re getting my point; this analogy is not helpful. I am not denying that when most people talk about ‘the Catholic Church’ they mean the Roman communion. Likewise, I am sure that when you hear people talk about ‘the Orthodox Church’, you know that they probably mean those churches in communion with Constantinople.

BUT, I am also sure that you, as a Roman Catholic, would be unwilling to concede that those churches in communion with Constantinople really are the orthodox church, since you, as a Roman Catholic, think that the Roman Catholic church is orthodox, and those in communion with Constantinople heterodox.

In the same way, I recognise that Augustine, and you and I can identify they church(es) in our respective towns which would commonly be called Catholic, yet that does not mean that I have to accept Rome’s claims about true catholicity any more than you have to accept Constantinople’s definition of what it means to be orthodox.

In this sense, Augustine’s argument fails. Do you see what I’m getting at? I’m sorry if I’m not explaining myself well.

 

[PRmerger]

I really don’t think you’re getting my point; this analogy is not helpful. I am not denying that when most people talk about ‘the Catholic Church’ they mean the Roman communion.

Excellent.

So it’s curious that you would ask, “What Catholics do you mean?” whenever we talk about the Catholic Church.

Likewise, I am sure that when you hear people talk about ‘the Orthodox Church’, you know that they probably mean those churches in communion with Constantinople.

Indeed.

BUT, I am also sure that you, as a Roman Catholic, would be unwilling to concede that those churches in communion with Constantinople really are the orthodox church, since you, as a Roman Catholic, think that the Roman Catholic church is orthodox, and those in communion with Constantinople heterodox.

Not at all.

I would never, ever, say, in response to someone making a statement about the Orthodox Church, “Oh, but did you mean my Church? For my Church is also orthodox!”

Nope.

I know that would prompt some eye rolling and some unnecessary diversions of conversation. (Which isn’t to say that natural segues of dialogue don’t interest me. I am wont to do that and often find the tributaries to be more interesting than the initial discussion).

It’s the fact that we all know what we mean when we say the Catholic Church, just like we all know what we mean by the Orthodox Church.

NB: It is true, however, that when we talk about the Protestant churches, that, indeed, is a panoply (or a behemoth) of differing churches, so one can never know to which church we are referring when we say “the Protestant church”. :sad_yes:

 

[Novocastrian]

Because the Holy Spirit continues to teach and lead the RCC can indeed reveal Dogmas that may have not been revealed in the day of Peter.

With that said, there is still no new revelation. All dogma is defined with the True word of God. Jesus didn’t forget to tell us anything.

Anything the Church teaches must be taught with sound doctrine. While our understanding grows with the help of the HS the doctrine does not change.

Like the unchanging teaching of the Church is hell is the unquechable fire and is eternal. 1034 ccc

I have continued to read the Papal Bull and the truth still remains. Luther said the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Holy Spirit.

The Church defends the unchanging truth that hell is the unquenchable fire and is eternal.

You claim the Church is wrong on defending this truth, Luther claimed it was true in #33 of his Thesis.

The Church disagrees.

The Church never taught they had authority to burn human heretics on this earth, if they did teach it as Church Dogma it would still be a teaching.

Read what Luther presented to the Church.

The Church also holds its teaching on Purgatory which is a temportal fire that can burn away sin.

One burning of heretics is purgatory, one is hell. It is not against the will of the Holy Spirit as Luther stated and is defined in the Papal Bull. Purgatory is a temportal burning, hell is eternal.

Luther did not state that the RCC claimed authority to burn human heretics exercised this authority and was wrong. Read what he said. I refuse to continue to keep repeating myself.

The RCC never claimed or condoned the burning of human at the stakes. That was Roman Law. If you want to accuse the RCC of having authority at that time to decide is someone was a heretic of the RCC then you have a case. They do.

And they still do. If someone is considered a Heretic of the RCC they will excommunicate them from the RCC and still have authority to do so then as they have in the past.

They claim the authority today as yesterday as today. You are Peter and you have the keys to the kingdom. The Pope still has them.

Luther nor any Protestant reformer has had the Authority to rid him of something given to him by Christ.

I have two questions to ask you, which I’d really appreciate if you could answer directly:

(1) On what basis do you interpret Exsurge Domine’s 33rd charge as referring to hell and/or purgatory? Can you show me anywhere in Luther’s works where he denies the existence of hell? If not, how do you justify this interpretation of the bull?

(2) How can you talk about Roman law in contradistinction to the law of the Church and the Papacy when the Papacy claimed at the time (still claims?) to be supreme over both spiritual and temporal government and legislation? If it was law that heretics be burned, and if the Pope is the supreme lawgiver both temporal and spiritual (as claimed at the time), then the buck stops with the Pope.

 

[Novocastrian]

It’s the fact that we all know what we mean when we say the Catholic Church, just like we all know what we mean by the Orthodox Church.

I completely agree. My initial question about ‘which Catholics’ was a tongue-in-cheek, friendly joke. But surely we can recognise that we don’t have to agree that just because most people call a church orthodox means that it is orthodox? Surely you, as a Catholic, claim that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not actually *the *orthodox church?

 

[PRmerger]

I completely agree. My initial question about ‘which Catholics’ was a tongue-in-cheek, friendly joke.

It was, here.

But apparently it is not a friendly joke in all threads, yes? It is enough of an issue for you to start your own thread on this?

But surely we can recognise that we don’t have to agree that just because most people call a church orthodox means that it is orthodox? Surely you, as a Catholic, claim that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not actually *the *orthodox church?

Again, I don’t have a problem referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches as The Orthodox Churches.

 

[Novocastrian]

It was, here.

But apparently it is not a friendly joke in all threads, yes? It is enough of an issue for you to start your own thread on this?

Well, insofar as I think people should be aware of the limitations of Augustine’s argument in that particular letter, then yes, it is an issue.

Again, I don’t have a problem referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches as The Orthodox Churches.

Neither do I, in everyday conversation; it’s more complicated once we start getting technical. But do you believe that they actually *are *orthodox?

 

[PRmerger]

Neither do I, in everyday conversation; it’s more complicated once we start getting technical. But do you believe that they actually *are *orthodox?

Yes, I do.

Their theology is, in all essentials, consonant with the truths of the Faith, given once for all, to the Apostles. Their theology is simply the other side of the same Catholic coin.

That they have departed from the truth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ is the only area in which they are* not *orthodox.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes, I do.

Their theology is, in all essentials, consonant with the truths of the Faith, given once for all, to the Apostles. Their theology is simply the other side of the same Catholic coin.

That they have departed from the truth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ is the only area in which they are* not *orthodox.

So you don’t think they’re 100% orthodox? If they were, you would be in communion with them! The Roman Catholic line is that although the Constantinopolitan communion is very close to orthodoxy, and preserves the essential elements of a church (sacraments, etc.), it is in fact heterodox.

 

[pocohombre]

But you rely, poco, on an institution. The Catholic institution.
God used the CC to tell you what belongs in the NT.
You would not know it any other way.

Really ? Then I would be in good company, with the saints who were heavily persecuted and had no scripture also until 398 AD.

So it seems curious to me that you would dismiss “relying on an institution” when you yourself do this each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired Word of God.

It didn’t bother Jesus for He quoted scripture left and right, yet no Jewish “institution” canonized scripture (till 115 AD ?).

Who told you that Hebrews was the inspired Word of God?
Answer: an institution.

The church is more than an institution. It is the Body of Christ. We all have the mind of Christ and we don’t need an institution to take the place of what should be our responsibility.
Strange that the question of this thread talks of ambiguity that comes from lack of this singular unifying authority, yet you would have us believe that for 400 year the church was all over the place, like protestants, on just what was scripture and what was not ? So if you went to one church it would say James epistle is scripture and another it would say Oh no it’s not. Or go to Corinth and they would say Paul’s letter’s to them are “scripture” but those in Galatia would say Paul’s letters to them were still being decided as to their being “scripture”. How did they decide for 325 years ?

 

[PRmerger]

Strange that the question of this thread talks of ambiguity that comes from lack of this singular unifying authority, yet you would have us believe that for 400 year the church was all over the place, like protestants, on just what was scripture and what was not ?

Suffice it to say, poco. that each and every time you quote from the NT, you will be telling yourself, “But I am relying on an institution, the Catholic institution, which told me that the book is actually the inspired Word of God.”

Even if you said that you think it’s bad to rely on institutions, you will be doing that each and every time you quote from the NT.

I know that you will have that in your mind whenever you quote from any NT book now.

 

[PRmerger]

So you don’t think they’re 100% orthodox?

I don’t think 100% orthodoxy is required in order to earn the name “the Orthodox Church”

 

[Novocastrian]

I don’t think 100% orthodoxy is required in order to earn the name “the Orthodox Church”

Really? So can one refer to a Catholic Church which isn’t 100% Catholic?

 

[pocohombre]

Suffice it to say, poco. that each and every time you quote from the NT, you will be telling yourself, “But I am relying on an institution, the Catholic institution, which told me that the book is actually the inspired Word of God.”

Even if you said that you think it’s bad to rely on institutions, you will be doing that each and every time you quote from the NT.

I know that you will have that in your mind whenever you quote from any NT book now.

And every time you think you are relying on an institution, I hope you realize you are really relying on the Lord"s revelation to you. For the record again, I did not say relying on an institution is "bad’. What I said is that the Lord divinely reveals to us the truth and validity of all sources of truth, be it scripture, a council, a presbyter (priests/bishop), magisterium, parents, teachers etc., etc… This is what the Father did for Peter, amongst a flury of “opinion” and trusted truth bearers. What is bad is forgetting that and possibly entering an “olotry” (bibliotry, churchalotry).

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Past the 1000 mark.
Continue with a new thread if you wish.