P
Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Jesus called the fisherman. God himself. God calls the apostles, God gave them authority, God sent them the holy spirit, God told them to pass on the tradition and authority, God protects them.
Exactly as we see in Acts 15. They did not settle the difference by saying you go your way and I go mine… No they came up with a definitive answer and then with authority sent it out by letter for all to abide by.
This happens today in the Catholic Church as it did then.
In protestantism…If they get together at all it is to divide the church and keep both opinions.
B
benhur
Guest
So all that is required to be C was taught by Paul ?
Well, the Body can decide and the Truth is there for the taking. Nothing not bound in heaven shall be bound (with any authority) on earth.
Agree in that for sure new converts and those weak in the faith will not hold an office. Still, the CC goes a bit to far in dichotomizing , making “classes”, even as ruling class.
No, they were freer, as witnessed by the growing number of anathemas culminating at Trent and beyond, that did not exist before.
Something like the archane and tiny apostles creed. Oh, how we have had to add, for we must truly know who is approved (genuine). We can not judge who will enter the Pearly Gates (God’s job) but we certainly must know who is of a genuine faction. So said Paul tongue in cheek.
B
benhur
Guest
Some would say like a ruling class and I partially agree in it’s rightness. But the leaven is there too, for you left out that as the apostles were called, enlightened and empowered to their specific calling, so is everyone else in the Body. By God Himself.
Last I heard it takes two to tango , or not. How many times did CC walk away or let others walk away without reaching a consensus ? Maybe the Pharisees and Saduccees began on same page, one faith, but they certainly ended up going there own way on some major stuff. I am sure the one blamed the other, just like today.
Consensus is reached in many major denominations but we are all far away from unity as in Acts.
What, Lutherans have several kinds as do baptists or episcopals? Not as much splitting as some portray. Still , yes, regrettable. But CC still has its’ dropouts also, even if only a church here and there .
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Some are called to lead…the apostles. Some are called to be the sheep. Jesus told peter to feed his sheep, feed his lambs, feed his sheep. He did not say to Peter, write a book. He did not say to peter, meet with other groups to discuss, and they all have the same authority. No, he said you Peter are now the shepherd who is to feed the sheep.
It may take two to Tango, but we aren’t dancing here. We are talking about truth. There is one truth and one who abandons the truth…thats it. Mitigating circumstances may exist but at the end of the day, there is truth and there is falsehood. God promised to lead us in ALL Truth through the Church
Not really, 3/4’s of Christianity is completely united under the Bishop of Rome, another 200,000 are closely united in most doctrine but separated by smaller things (orthodox). Then there is less than 25% of Christianity in the form of Protestantism that is hopelessly divided. The Baptist Church you use as an example has HUNDREDS of denominations. All of them disagreeing on at least one matter big enough that would entail a new denomination forming.
By the way, I appreciate you spending so much time in this thread. It is beneficial to all, and I hope you have been enlightened enough to thoroughly reevaluate some of your positions…
G
guanophore
Guest
To say it would be “nice” if we were all unified seems to discount the importance of the unity. Jesus desires that we all be One. The unity of the One Faith is not determined by those who depart from it. The unity of the faith was not disqualified because Judas departed from it. It is the Teachings that are One.
Perhaps you can shed some light on this, since it seems to me that the teachings today are the same as they have been for 2000 years. It seems that you often confuse disciplines with doctrines. Maybe that is why you think there have been changes?
The successors of the Apostles did not create the “mess” that currently exists as disunity. That was created by persons who left the One Faith.
This is true. It was a theological speculation. The Eastern Church has a different type of theological speculation of purgatory, something like a toll house. No, they are not doctrines (teachings passed down from the Apostles) but efforts of theologians to conceptualize the faith in a limited human way.
Our understanding of the One Faith does develop over time, but the doctrines do not change. The early Church has always held that Jesus came for His mother when her earthly life was over. This is taught in the East, though they do not have a dogmatic pronouncement on it as we do in the West. Dogmatic pronouncements are made when heresies arise, to protect the faithful from falling into error.
You seem to think that truths that have not been dogmatically declared were “ok” to have previously. This is not the case. For example, all those who embraced Arianism were in error before the council of Nicea created the Creed, and before the term homoousious was adopted. Similarly, those who did not accept three persons in one God were in error before the term “Trinity” was adopted.
Something that is free of defect is not “sterile”. Jesus is free of defect, yet he is the firstborn of many brethren.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same Source. They are the teachings of the Apostles, contained in two intertwined and complimentary threads. Doctrine, whether contained in Sacred Scripture or the Sacred Tradition cannot “develop/evolve”. Only our understanding of it can. Doctrine is pure, not sterile.
Fortunately for all of us, He is able to reach into the utter regions of darkness. It is disturbing, however, that you consider a unity and purity of doctrine “sterile”. This is so contrary to the full, faithful, and fruitful relationship of Jesus with His Holy Bride. Unity of doctrine bears good fruit, and disciples are begotten.
It is important to understand the history of our faith, to analyze, question, and grow in faith by study. This does not give us the right to change the doctrines, as happened during the Reformation. Altering what was passed down to us is beyond the freedom of what we are given.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think these are the germaine questions, Ben. One factor involved is the modern innovation redefining what is “church”. The Apostles taught that the Church is incarnational - with both divine and human elements, just as Christ is.
Many modern Christians will define “church” as “the body of believers on earth”. Although this is an accurate description of the Church, it is only a partial one. The Church founded by Christ has Himself as Head, and the Holy Spirit as her soul. She contains the souls of all who have gone on before us in the faith. Si it is more than just a “corporate body of individuals”. What prevents her from error are the divine elements not the human.
G
guanophore
Guest
Did you think he left something out? Do you imagine that, since there was no NT canon, or use of the word “Trinity” that he did not teach about scripture and the unity of the Godhead?
That is not what He said, though, ,is it? He said that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven - meaning they have the legislative authority. This is why the Church needs infallibility. God cannot allow something untrue to be bound in heaven, so such decisions must be protected from error.
I think you will have to explain this for me. I am not familiar with any “classes” in the CC.
Certainly the more capabilities human kind develop, the more people can fall into new and different kinds of sin. The Apostles could hardly imagine internet porn addiction, for example. But the idea that people can do whatever they want is not freedom, but license. Freedom means that an individual is liberated from slavery to sin and can choose the good and right. The number of anathemas grows directly in proportion to the number of heresies and errors. It is the duty of the Church to protect the faithful by making it clear where the heresy lies.
Dogmatic pronouncements and Creeds are designed to keep the faithful united to the pure doctrine of the Apostles. Whenever apostasy abounds, one will find these protections for the faithful in equal abundance. These are the rod and the staff to guide the flock. The perception of them as limiting freedom means that the person is feeling constrained against sin.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Nothing was tongue in cheek about St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11.
He was admonishing those rich persons who ate with abundance next to the very poor who had nothing. The rich were getting drunk and ignoring the condition of the poor. These were sinful acts that stained their soul prior to receiving the Eucharist. They were “partaking of the (Eucharistic) Supper unworthily” and creating factions within the Church.
Abuses at the Lord’s Supper
17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[g] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[j] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[k] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters,[l] when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come…
Catholic’s understand St. Paul’s and St. John’s words to be the same: the bread and wine becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord.
So too did these early Catholics, St. Ignatius even being taught by St. John himself.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).*
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Stay on topic, not the personal issues of individual posters.
This ain’t Facebook.
This ain’t Facebook.
G
guanophore
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Why do you think it is necessary to reach a consensus?
Are you willing to deny the truth to reach a consensus?
Didn’t Jesus allow His disciples to walk away over the teaching of His Real Presence in the Eucharist in John 6?
Would you criticize Jesus for this?
P
pablope
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
Allow ? More like purposely "led’ them away, for, “He knew from the beginning who did not believe”. From the beginning is from the beginning , before any dialogue of flesh eating. Did not believe what ? That following Him requires eating Him ? No, from the beginning they did not believe in Him to be the Son of God, the Messiah. They loved the show and it’s carnal possibilities. Shouldn’t that have been problematic to have disciples who really don’t believe ? How would you like to have swarms of people flooding your church who were not interested in true Catholicism but a false one, and the more you tried to "reach "them , the less they cared to understand it your way ?
B
benhur
Guest
“and blessed are those who believe and have not seen”
The apostles are not here today, so like the thread question, who now speaks for them best ? Indeed we listen, for by it comes faith. The bible is and any church is formally insufficient to final “enlightenment”.
Correct, for Saul had thought he had decided correctly, as he persecuted Christians. The submission was much deeper than say to the apostles and by the way , the Lord taught Paul for three years and Paul submitted himself to Christ’s teachings before every setting an eye on an apostles (3 years in Arabia, before Jerusalem). Paul humbly submitted to Christ first, just like the apostles, and really, like all of us.
Why would it take a special revelation to “submit” to the apostles. is not that kind of a given ? It was a needed revelation, which some did not submit to until the first council in Jerusalem. Paul was preaching to the gentiles, and not converting them to judaism (no circumcision). The two had to be reconcilable, or else Paul preached in vain, and Paul’s gentile converts were not saved after all, until Judaized.
Right, the word is not magisterium (not free to say that in trying not to be catholic) but i thought many have "confessions’’ or even central authority /teachings.
B
benhur
Guest
Understand Peter can symbolize unity of the twelve and the rest of us. But sometimes the reasoning goes to far like saying well of course Peter is supreme, lest the other apostles renegade and preach their own gospel, their own seat . Contrived way of justifying the Chair…Iraneus does not mention such a chair save that Peter and Paul are the foundation for the church at Rome. He says what is believed in Rome should and does reflect the church everywhere else, but from a natural (super) unity and proper succession in all churches. He does not suggest a "forced’’ unity thru Rome (or a negative persuasion, like if Rome did not lead, the church would be all over the place, ununified, as if the other apostles were weak or carnal sheep without a Shepherd.
P
Porknpie
Guest
So when St. Ireneus explicitly does not say something, the apostolic faith is not to be believed.
But even if St. Ireneus does explicitly say something, the apostolic faith is *still *not to be believed (his belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist below).
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
What really matters then is not what he says or does not say. What matters is what one’s preconceived belief is … then one reads into St. Irenaeus what one wants to believe.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, we all have gifts and calling, but not all are called to shepherd the flock. It is to those shepherds that Jesus gave the care and feeding of the flock. I don’t think it is a “class” in the social/economic sense but it is a certain vocation that comes with privileges and responsibilities.
All of them, I imagine. The Church is not at liberty to abandon any part of the deposit of faith. The One Faith is not a matter of “consensus”. It was given by Christ, who represents a theocracy, not a democracy.
We don’t get to sit around and have a “consensus” about Truth. Truth was imparted by the Head of the Church, and entrusted to the Apostles, who entrusted it to their successors. We “receive” the Truth.
They certainly seemed to be able to get into a disagreement quickly.
It is a great joy to see some of the factions coming back together. We do have a long way to go.
I think that is what is different, though. Catholics have received the Apostolic teaching that we are not to divide ourselves. From the beginning “dropouts” were considered heretics or apostates. It is not acceptable to have the “doctrinal distinctives” that exist today.
How can we show the world about Christ, when we are not One?
G
guanophore
Guest
You are not making any sense, Ben. You asked an epistomological question - how did Peter know the Truth?
This answer is a non sequitor. How do we know the truth today? Are you basically saying you have not “seen” but you still believe, so you are blessed? How does that get to the answer of how we know what is Truth?
You don’t believe the Scriptures can make you wise unto salvation?
You are right, Paul knew there had to be a unity. He knew that there had to be One Faith, for both Jew, and Gentile, and despite the fact that He received the Gospel from the Lord, and the other Apostles did not add anything to it for him, ,it was important for him to go to Jerusalem and lay it out for them all. But, it was not “consensus”.
R
Rasoleil
Guest
- Status