Sola Scriptura

[Fludgecow101]

Thought someone might be interested in debating or at least looking at this.

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-debates.htm

 

[eucharist04]

Thought someone might be interested in debating or at least looking at this.

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-debates.htm

You are not going to convince protestants they are wrong. What really burns me is when they say something like: "Christian v. Catholic, like we are not christian.

 

[N80]

Y What really burns me is when they say something like: "Christian v. Catholic, like we are not christian.

I agree. It is unlikely that any devout and thoughtful Protestant will be convinced that he is doctrinally “wrong” any more that the same would likely be true of a thoughtful and devout Catholic.

I also agree that “Christian vs Catholic” is an inappropriate and unnecessarily polarizing characterization. But, do you think this is a purely Protestant fault? Is it possible that a Catholic might describe the differences between them as Christian vs Protestant?

In fact, it seems like the Pope declaring that Protestant churches are not churches at all and that they are, rather, mere “ecclesial communities” (whatever that is) without the right to administer sacraments is pretty close to the same thing isn’t it? I’m sure such a position allows for a certain amount of gray area, but it is still very close to suggesting that Protestants are not Christians. It might fall short of calling them pagans, but in effect what are they if they cannot be baptized or take part in Communion?

And what does it mean if the Protestant churches are not a “Church”? Does that mean that they are not part of the catholic (small ‘c’) church? They certainly profess to believe in it in the Apostle’s Creed. Does it mean that the Protestant church at large is not part of the body of Christ? If not, how can they be Christians?

 

[Love_is_Patient]

1. I also agree that “Christian vs Catholic” is an inappropriate and unnecessarily polarizing characterization. But, do you think this is a purely Protestant fault? Is it possible that a Catholic might describe the differences between them as Christian vs Protestant?
2. In fact, it seems like the Pope declaring that Protestant churches are not churches at all and that they are, rather, mere “ecclesial communities” (whatever that is) without the right to administer sacraments is pretty close to the same thing isn’t it? I’m sure such a position allows for a certain amount of gray area, but it is still very close to suggesting that Protestants are not Christians. It might fall short of calling them pagans, but in effect what are they if they cannot be baptized or take part in Communion?
3. And what does it mean if the Protestant churches are not a “Church”? Does that mean that they are not part of the catholic (small ‘c’) church? They certainly profess to believe in it in the Apostle’s Creed. Does it mean that the Protestant church at large is not part of the body of Christ? If not, how can they be Christians?

Thank you so much for asking these questions. We at Catholic Answers appreciate it when people come with a genuine interest in what Catholics believe.

1. From Lumen Gentium:

he Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

1. Catholics believe that anyone can administer baptism. Catholics believe that Protestants are Christian. An ecclesial community is a community of Christians who have not preserved apostolic succession and Holy Tradition.
2. By virtue of baptism, all Christians are members of the Catholic Church–even if they are not visible, professing members of the Catholic Church. So yes, you as a Christian are part of the Body of Christ.

I hope this helps. If not, please continue to ask and we’ll do our best to help you out!

Love is Patient

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

II also agree that “Christian vs Catholic” is an inappropriate and unnecessarily polarizing characterization. But, do you think this is a purely Protestant fault? Is it possible that a Catholic might describe the differences between them as Christian vs Protestant?

I have never seen this, however if a Catholic were to say it they would be dead wrong. Protestants are Christian.

In fact, it seems like the Pope declaring that Protestant churches are not churches at all and that they are, rather, mere “ecclesial communities” (whatever that is) without the right to administer sacraments is pretty close to the same thing isn’t it?

You have to understand that Catholics believe that Christ founded just one Church, so it would be counter to recognize many Christian Churches. Also understand that the Catholic Church considers Protestants apart of that one true Church through their baptism. Though it is an imperfect union.

I’m sure such a position allows for a certain amount of gray area, but it is still very close to suggesting that Protestants are not Christians.

Not at all, read my above comment.

It might fall short of calling them pagans, but in effect what are they if they cannot be baptized or take part in Communion?

You can be baptized and the Church recognizes your Baptism as valid. (As long as it is done validly of course )

And what does it mean if the Protestant churches are not a “Church”? Does that mean that they are not part of the catholic (small ‘c’) church?

As I explained, there is only one Church and through baptism all Christians are apart of this Church.

From the Catechism:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

God bless

 

[JonNC]

You are not going to convince protestants they are wrong. What really burns me is when they say something like: "Christian v. Catholic, like we are not christian.

Be certain, my Christian sibling, not all of us have that false notion of Catholicism, and I have here confronted a few who do.

Jon

 

[N80]

Thank you both for your thoughtful replies. I find this very interesting and have additional questions. I hope that you will not find my questions provocative in a negative way and please don’t read anything judgemental into them. I am simply and sincerely a curious Protestant. (In addition to Calvin’s Institutes , I have read a (poor) summa of Aquina’s Summa Theologica, Augustine’s Confessions and some of the City of God). And for the record, I came here originally to ask about what I need to know regarding attending Easter Mass when we visit Parma, Italy this spring…in other words, I’m not here as a troll…and I’ve received excellent and thoughtful help for my original question.

1. In any case “Roman_Catholic”, I’m sure you can see some of the paradoxical language in your post. In other words, you say that Catholics believe (as do Protestants) that Christ founded one and only one Church. And it is logical, therefore, that there can be only one Church and that it is the Catholic Church. But Protestants are not part of the Catholic Church which = the one true Church. So they can’t, logically, be part of the one true Church. It can’t really go both ways. Suggesting that they are " a part" of the one true Church, just not the Catholic Church, seems to imply that the one true Church can be divided. Both of us would agree that this is not true.
2. “Love is Patient”, in your response you quote a source that says:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.”

Clearly, Protestants do not believe in the Apostolic line of Peter. That makes perfect sense. It is the nature of the statement that “they do not profess the faith in its entirety” that will puzzle most Protestants. It is not a hard concept that Catholics belive that their doctrine is part of the Faith and Protestants do not ascribe to Catholic doctrine. The hard part is what does this really mean in the life of a Protestant? And I think that is what needs more clarity than anything else regarding both of your responses here and in regard to the Pope’s statement.

In other words, I’m hearing that the Catholic Church acknowledges that Protestants are Christians, and that they are saved, which means that they are, by extension, part of the Body of Christ. But, their faith is incomplete, their churches are not churches, their pastors are not pastors and their Sacraments are profane. And don’t worry, I do not find this offensive, we can discuss it without the risk of hurt feelings. Where I’m going with this is what do these shortcomings mean? In other words, what is the penalty of not being Catholic?

Is it a matter of degree? In other words, will the ideal Catholic love, worship, enjoy and obey God better than the ideal Protestant? They will both enjoy perfect union with Christ when they die, but will the Catholic life be lived closer to God’s desire than the Protestant one? This position or idea would make sense to me.

But if that’s the case, is there practical proof of this idea or is it purely theoretical? Or is “practical proof” even a valid concept? I don’t know.

In any case, these are just questions that come to mind. Again, do not worry about offending me. Like many of you I’m firm and confident in my beliefs. I’m mostly just curious on an intellectual level, not a spiritual one. And I do believe in the mysteries of the Christian faith and that some things of God are not in the domain of the intellect of man.

George

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

1. In any case “Roman_Catholic”, I’m sure you can see some of the paradoxical language in your post. In other words, you say that Catholics believe (as do Protestants) that Christ founded one and only one Church. And it is logical, therefore, that there can be only one Church and that it is the Catholic Church. But Protestants are not part of the Catholic Church which = the one true Church. So they can’t, logically, be part of the one true Church. It can’t really go both ways. Suggesting that they are " a part" of the one true Church, just not the Catholic Church, seems to imply that the one true Church can be divided. Both of us would agree that this is not true.

Protestants are part of the Church, through their baptism. Although it is an imperfect union.

From the Catechism

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

in other words, I’m hearing that the Catholic Church acknowledges that Protestants are Christians, and that they are saved

Can be saved. No one is saved by being Protestant, or by simply being Catholic. Q.E.D. this statement from the Catechism:

838…Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not 'in heart.

It is through God’s Grace that we are saved.

But, their faith is incomplete, their churches are not churches, their pastors are not pastors and their Sacraments are profane.

To be honest I will have to look into these claims more but it could be worse. You could be Catholic and then experience what some non-Catholics say about your faith… The “Whore of Babylon”

God bless

 

[N80]

Can be saved. No one is saved by being Protestant, or by simply being Catholic.

Agreed. I was simply referring to saved Catholics and Protestants, not that their affiliation provided their salvation.

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

George

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Protestants are part of the Church, through their baptism. Although it is an imperfect union.

Gabriel of 12;
Hello Roman Catholic;
I have seen this statement broadly stated about a valid baptism makes every one Catholic?

True as you stated Roman Catholic “Although it is an imperfect union”.

Those who are outside of the Catholic church with a valid baptism remain in infancy as St. Paul teaches and have not completed their Christian Initiation.

This reminds me exactly when Paul came across some of John the Baptist disciples who only had John’s baptism. Paul eventually baptizes these disciples of John the Baptist in Jesus and then completes the initiation with the laying on of hands which Paul administers the Sacrament of Confirmation upon them to which they recieved the Holy Spirit.

It amazes me how a man made doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” can just swipe the board of Christian believing, when it took Jesus 3 years to reveal all these Sacraments, and the last sacrament of Intitiation did not come until Pentecost when he resurrected, and the Eucharist which Jesus commanded to do at his Passion before his death.

A valid Baptism is only the entrance into the kingdom, now the believer must partake of his body and blood in the Eucharist, then recieve the Holy Spirit in the final Christian Initiation of the Sacrament of Confirmation. The apostles themselves were not confirmed in the Christian faith until Jesus resurrected and recieved the Holy Spirit which enabled them to proclaim Jesus Crucified. Prior to this event at Pentecost, the apostles feared and denied Jesus.

This is the infancy of christianity that those with a valid baptism who remain outside the body of Jesus Christ, as did the disciples of John the Baptist, who never even heard of a Holy Spirit.

Protestants and non Catholics believe they heard of the Spirit, this comes from their baptism, but have not matured in the Spiritual realities of Christianity that can only come from the body of Jesus Christ in his Catholic church. That is why Christian baptised remain only infants, unknowingly fall for every wind of doctrine such as Man Made theologies such as “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide” etc.

Without the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confirmation to complete their Christian intitiation as matured Christians filled with the Holy Spirit and the protection of God with God’s seal upon their foreheads, these valid baptised outside the Catholic church will continue to fall for such false belief’s, and move from Christian community to another. For they do not have the complete confirmation of the Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

Clearly, Protestants do not believe in the Apostolic line of Peter. That makes perfect sense.

George,
I’ll let you continue your interesting conversation with Roman_Catholic, but just a note that most Lutherans do not reject apostolic succession, and the reformers were clear about it in the confessions.

Jon

 

[N80]

[Protestants and non Catholics believe they heard of the Spirit, this comes from their baptism, but have not matured in the Spiritual realities of Christianity that can only come from the body of Jesus Christ in his Catholic church.

So this maturity that you speak of is conferred to Christians only through the Roman Catholic Church? And it is therefoe exclusive to professing, and presumably, orthodox Catholics?

Again, this is a reasonable doctrine, but it affords very little in terms of visible proof or effect. Paul tells us what the fruits of the spirit are and we are told that by such fruits we are known to be of Christ. In other words, these fruits are outward proof and therefore signs of maturity. Clearly there are Protestants who have these fruits and they are evident to anyone who will see. Likewise, there are Catholics who do not have or demonstrate such fruits. If spiritual maturity is conferred by association with the Catholic Church, how can obvious spiritual maturity in a Protestant be explained? Or lack thereof in a Cathloic be explained.

That is why Christian baptised remain only infants, unknowingly fall for every wind of doctrine such as Man Made theologies such as “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide” etc.

Are Protestants or Catholics without the effect of man made theologies? That would be a very tough argument to make.

these valid baptised outside the Catholic church will continue to fall for such false belief’s, and move from Christian community to another. For they do not have the complete confirmation of the Apostolic faith.

And yet, even with the confirmation of which you speak do we not see the Catholic Church equally if not more susceptible to the vagaries of time, relativism, culture and wandering?

George
[/quote]

 

[N80]

George,
I’ll let you continue your interesting conversation with Roman_Catholic, but just a note that most Lutherans do not reject apostolic succession, and the reformers were clear about it in the confessions.

Jon

I did not know that about Lutherans. Thanks for pointing that out. But what do you mean about the reformers being clear about it? For or against?

George

 

[JonNC]

I did not know that about Lutherans. Thanks for pointing that out. But what do you mean about the reformers being clear about it? For or against?

George

For. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Gabriel of 12,

I appreciate you taking the time to edify me if I am not representing the proper Catholic teaching in this matter.

Could you tell me how the quotes from the CCC that I provided are to be understood?

I don’t want it to seem that I am promoting relativism, but I do recognize, like the Church does, that these Protestant communions can be used by God as a means of salvation and that these believers are members of the body of Christ.

Thanks and God bless

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So this maturity that you speak of is conferred to Christians only through the Roman Catholic Church? And it is therefoe exclusive to professing, and presumably, orthodox Catholics?

Again, this is a reasonable doctrine, but it affords very little in terms of visible proof or effect. Paul tells us what the fruits of the spirit are and we are told that by such fruits we are known to be of Christ. In other words, these fruits are outward proof and therefore signs of maturity. Clearly there are Protestants who have these fruits and they are evident to anyone who will see. Likewise, there are Catholics who do not have or demonstrate such fruits. If spiritual maturity is conferred by association with the Catholic Church, how can obvious spiritual maturity in a Protestant be explained? Or lack thereof in a Cathloic be explained.

Gabriel of 12:
Maturity in a Protestant faith or non catholic for that matter can be explained very simply when we are speaking about revealed Spiritual realities. Maturity in the Spirit can only be achieved in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church.

Now the Protestants with a valid baptism surely is subseptible to the fruits of the Spirit. Every child recieves milk for nourishment. Where these Protestants and non catholics Christianity remains in infancy, is because they have not received the Apostolic anointing of the laying of hands which comes from Jesus himself in his Sacrament of Confirmation.

Now let me explain the power of this Sacrament of Christian Initiation to which Protestants and non catholic “LACK” Thereof;
The Sacrament of Confrimation strengthens the faith in the infant in baptism, The Confirmed Christian is now able to consume the meat of revealed Christian Spiritual Realities and knowledge. Confirmation strengthens the baptised Christian to defend, explain, stand still and allow the Holy Spirit to speak on our behalf when persecuted.

Now here comes the meaning of the Sacrament of Confirmation which Protestants and non catholics “Lack”, The Apostolic laying of hands which can only come from a successor to the apostles (present day Catholic Bishops )with the unbroken anointing of the Holy Spirit administered to the baptised who is strengthened in the Holy Spirit and WILL NOT BE MOVED BY EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE THAT BLOWS THERE WAY, and these confirmed will remain always in the Rock of Jesus Christ even under the threat of death.

Thus unconfirmed validly baptised Protestants and non catholic christians, will always and continue to fall by every wind of man made invented doctrines for example “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide” that may come to their hearing.

Now what I speak to you is rarely spoken of in this non catholic forum, because these Spiritual Realities are foolishness to the world, but to those of the Spirit which are confirmed Catholics have the mind of Christ.

As far as the Eastern Rites or what you may referring to in the Orthodox Catholic church, these recieve all three sacraments at infancy, including the Eucharist.

The difference in the West or Latin Rite, the Bishop successor to apostles is the ordinary administer of Confirmation. In the East, any priest can administer these sacraments, except when the priest administer’s the Sacrament of Confirmation he must do so with the Myron (oil) received from his apostolic successor his Patriarch.

N80;
Are Protestants or Catholics without the effect of man made theologies? That would be a very tough argument to make.

Gabriel of 12:
True Protestants hold to man made doctrines such as the “Sola’s theologies”. If you think Catholics have man made doctrines you are grossly misinformed, or misunderstand Catholic apostolic doctrine from Catholic disciplines. Many get these confused or mingle them together. The one doctrine that comes to mind is the Blessed Trinity, this is a Catholic doctrine defined and revealed over 300 years Jesus resurrected. Many non catholics believe the Catholic church invented this doctrine, I can assure you like all the other apostolic doctrines that have come under attack or try to change these apostolic teaches, the church is found in history not inventing new christian doctrines, the Catholic church is defending or defining these apostolic teachings unchanged.

N80
And yet, even with the confirmation of which you speak do we not see the Catholic Church equally if not more susceptible to the vagaries of time, relativism, culture and wandering?

George

**Gabriel of 12:**The Catholic church will not change, she is “Rock” which Jesus built his church upon. Her members are subject to “concupisence” but Jesus has left his church with the ministry of Reconciliation, that is why the Catholic church is fully divine and fully human. The Catholic church herself is always making herself ready to recieve her husband Jesus when he returns for her.

 

[N80]

Maturity in a Protestant faith or non catholic for that matter can be explained very simply when we are speaking about revealed Spiritual realities. Maturity in the Spirit can only be achieved in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church.

I understand the ‘idea’ you are suggesting, but as yet you have not defined what this maturity is other than resistance to ‘wandering’. This seems intellectually insufficient, because both Catholics and non-Catholics are prone to wandering and false doctrines. So if that is the sole definition of Maturity in Spirit then it seems to have no teeth. Have there been no steadfast Protestants?

Now the Protestants with a valid baptism surely is subseptible to the fruits of the Spirit. Every child recieves milk for nourishment. Where these Protestants and non catholics Christianity remains in infancy, is because they have not received the Apostolic anointing of the laying of hands which comes from Jesus himself in his Sacrament of Confirmation.

Just as in the case of ‘maturity’, the idea of ‘infancy’ is easy enough, but what does it mean? You say why they remain in infancy but do not provide a measure by which to qualify maturity or lack thereof.

The Confirmed Christian is now able to consume the meat of revealed Christian Spiritual Realities and knowledge. Confirmation strengthens the baptised Christian to defend, explain, stand still and allow the Holy Spirit to speak on our behalf when persecuted.

Again, this sounds like something that is conferred onto a believer. I have no trouble with that concept, but how does one explain the demonstrated infancy and weakness of those who have been Confirmed and the corollary of demonstrated maturity and fruits of the Spirit in those who have not?

Now here comes the meaning of the Sacrament of Confirmation which Protestants and non catholics “Lack”, The Apostolic laying of hands which can only come from a successor to the apostles (present day Catholic Bishops )with the unbroken anointing of the Holy Spirit administered to the baptised who is strengthened in the Holy Spirit and WILL NOT BE MOVED BY EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE THAT BLOWS THERE WAY, and these confirmed will remain always in the Rock of Jesus Christ even under the threat of death.

Again, this seems to presume that all the Confirmed will be steadfast and that no unconfirmed can ever be steadfast. This has never been borne out in any historical or demonstrable sense. These very forums clearly attest to the various directions and inclinations in which the Catholic church has wandered and is wandering. Make no mistake, I’m not knocking the Catholic Church in this regard, there is not mistaking the vagaries of Protestantism but I do not see the Catholic Church even remotely immune.

Thus unconfirmed validly baptised Protestants and non catholic christians, will always and continue to fall by every wind of man made invented doctrines for example “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide” that may come to their hearing.

This is simply unsupportable. It is true of all humankind, but is no more true of Protestant than Catholic than Orthodox than Jew. The irony is that Protestantism exists, at least in the minds of Catholics, because the Catholic Church was, in fact, moved by the winds of doctrinal change.

Now what I speak to you is rarely spoken of in this non catholic forum, because these Spiritual Realities are foolishness to the world, but to those of the Spirit which are confirmed Catholics have the mind of Christ.

I appreciate your candor. I still don’t understand your explanation, but I think candor is important; such discussion is not for the thin of skin or faint of conviction.

True Protestants hold to man made doctrines such as the “Sola’s theologies”.

Well, first, I have to say that it is somewhat ironic, and even a little funny (when you think about it) that you refer to Sola Scriptura as a manmade doctrine when, in essence, it is the doctrine that basically stipulates that there is NO true manmade doctrine. You see what I’m saying right? The doctrine is scripture alone, i.e. no room for humanly created doctrine. See what I’m saying? I think its fine to contest it or to call it wrong, but to disparage it for being manmade is an unbearable irony!

If you think Catholics have man made doctrines you are grossly misinformed, or misunderstand Catholic apostolic doctrine from Catholic disciplines.

I’ve been grossly misinformed before so this wouldn’t be the first time and I’m enjoying the education I’m receiving here. But this is truly a matter of perspective. Both the Catholic and the Reformed Churches are steadfast in their belief that their doctrines are scriptural. And they both have significant scriptural proof of their doctrines. And they both often accuse the other of ‘homemade’ doctrine. And if you are going to differentiate Catholic ‘doctrines’ from ‘disciplines’ then the Reformists could just as easily define some of its ‘doctrines’ as ‘disciplines’ or ‘non-doctrinal theological concepts’ in order to likewise dodge the charges of ‘man made’ doctrinism. And the truth is, when you talk about the basic concepts like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Ressurection and Jesus being the sole source of salvation, those are true doctrines truly and fully embraced by both churches (with few, but unfortunate exceptions on both sides). If you wish to move away from those core concepts of Christianity and discuss Sola Scriptura or whichever Catholic discipline you choose, the charges of them being homemade will come from both sides. So as you suggest, comparing apples to apples is very important.

In any case, thank you for you insights into these matters. I have learned more than you might guess but I’m afraid I will carry this discussion onto well and often covered ground and must bow out.

George

 

[Love_is_Patient]

1. “Love is Patient”, in your response you quote a source that says:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.”

Clearly, Protestants do not believe in the Apostolic line of Peter. That makes perfect sense. It is the nature of the statement that “they do not profess the faith in its entirety” that will puzzle most Protestants. It is not a hard concept that Catholics belive that their doctrine is part of the Faith and Protestants do not ascribe to Catholic doctrine. The hard part is what does this really mean in the life of a Protestant? And I think that is what needs more clarity than anything else regarding both of your responses here and in regard to the Pope’s statement.

In other words, I’m hearing that the Catholic Church acknowledges that Protestants are Christians, and that they are saved, which means that they are, by extension, part of the Body of Christ. But, their faith is incomplete, their churches are not churches, their pastors are not pastors and their Sacraments are profane. And don’t worry, I do not find this offensive, we can discuss it without the risk of hurt feelings. Where I’m going with this is what do these shortcomings mean? In other words, what is the penalty of not being Catholic?

Here’s how I think about it: Protestants have less available to them. They don’t have continuance with historic, ancient, apostolic Christianity. They miss out on the communion of saints, the Holy Eucharist, the fullness of truth.

Is it a matter of degree? In other words, will the ideal Catholic love, worship, enjoy and obey God better than the ideal Protestant? They will both enjoy perfect union with Christ when they die, but will the Catholic life be lived closer to God’s desire than the Protestant one? This position or idea would make sense to me.

To a Catholic, your worship would be deficient, since you don’t have the Holy Eucharist, and so you miss out on that incredible source of grace and union with Christ.

But if that’s the case, is there practical proof of this idea or is it purely theoretical? Or is “practical proof” even a valid concept? I don’t know.

In any case, these are just questions that come to mind. Again, do not worry about offending me. Like many of you I’m firm and confident in my beliefs. I’m mostly just curious on an intellectual level, not a spiritual one. And I do believe in the mysteries of the Christian faith and that some things of God are not in the domain of the intellect of man.

George

Basically, it all comes down to the Eucharist.

God bless and thanks for your questions.

Love is Patient

 

[broski234]

You are not going to convince protestants they are wrong. What really burns me is when they say something like: "Christian v. Catholic, like we are not christian.

When this happens, recommend to them a book called “Catholic and Christian” by Alan Schreck. It’s a good one! It may even remove some of there roadblocks.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I understand the ‘idea’ you are suggesting, but as yet you have not defined what this maturity is other than resistance to ‘wandering’. This seems intellectually insufficient, because both Catholics and non-Catholics are prone to wandering and false doctrines. So if that is the sole definition of Maturity in Spirit then it seems to have no teeth. Have there been no steadfast Protestants?

Just as in the case of ‘maturity’, the idea of ‘infancy’ is easy enough, but what does it mean? You say why they remain in infancy but do not provide a measure by which to qualify maturity or lack thereof.

Again, this sounds like something that is conferred onto a believer. I have no trouble with that concept, but how does one explain the demonstrated infancy and weakness of those who have been Confirmed and the corollary of demonstrated maturity and fruits of the Spirit in those who have not?

Again, this seems to presume that all the Confirmed will be steadfast and that no unconfirmed can ever be steadfast. This has never been borne out in any historical or demonstrable sense. These very forums clearly attest to the various directions and inclinations in which the Catholic church has wandered and is wandering. Make no mistake, I’m not knocking the Catholic Church in this regard, there is not mistaking the vagaries of Protestantism but I do not see the Catholic Church even remotely immune.

This is simply unsupportable. It is true of all humankind, but is no more true of Protestant than Catholic than Orthodox than Jew. The irony is that Protestantism exists, at least in the minds of Catholics, because the Catholic Church was, in fact, moved by the winds of doctrinal change.

I appreciate your candor. I still don’t understand your explanation, but I think candor is important; such discussion is not for the thin of skin or faint of conviction.

Well, first, I have to say that it is somewhat ironic, and even a little funny (when you think about it) that you refer to Sola Scriptura as a manmade doctrine when, in essence, it is the doctrine that basically stipulates that there is NO true manmade doctrine. You see what I’m saying right? The doctrine is scripture alone, i.e. no room for humanly created doctrine. See what I’m saying? I think its fine to contest it or to call it wrong, but to disparage it for being manmade is an unbearable irony!

I’ve been grossly misinformed before so this wouldn’t be the first time and I’m enjoying the education I’m receiving here. But this is truly a matter of perspective. Both the Catholic and the Reformed Churches are steadfast in their belief that their doctrines are scriptural. And they both have significant scriptural proof of their doctrines. And they both often accuse the other of ‘homemade’ doctrine. And if you are going to differentiate Catholic ‘doctrines’ from ‘disciplines’ then the Reformists could just as easily define some of its ‘doctrines’ as ‘disciplines’ or ‘non-doctrinal theological concepts’ in order to likewise dodge the charges of ‘man made’ doctrinism. And the truth is, when you talk about the basic concepts like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Ressurection and Jesus being the sole source of salvation, those are true doctrines truly and fully embraced by both churches (with few, but unfortunate exceptions on both sides). If you wish to move away from those core concepts of Christianity and discuss Sola Scriptura or whichever Catholic discipline you choose, the charges of them being homemade will come from both sides. So as you suggest, comparing apples to apples is very important.

In any case, thank you for you insights into these matters. I have learned more than you might guess but I’m afraid I will carry this discussion onto well and often covered ground and must bow out.

George

Peace be with you George, As I stated this “Confirmation” sacrament is rarely discussed in this forum, for the fact these topics deal with Spiritual Realities that only the maturre Christian can understand. I hope this topic at least introduces you to a Catholicism that makes Catholic men PRIESTS who can take a life long vow of Chastity, Poverty and obedience to Jesus Christ including women who take these vows remaining obedient to their spouse personal savior Jesus Christ when they take their vows in Holy Orders.

It would be my pleasure to begin a scriptural content to explain the sacrament of confirmation with a mature Christian Spirituality, but this may require a whole new thread.

I can respect your responses from your standpoint, it only reveals the spirituality that exists between us. So I would like to just end with a summary to conclude our interaction; The point you missed about the sacrament of Confirmation and those who are validly baptized, have succumbed to the notions of man made religion and moved by every wind of doctrine. This is much to comprehend, it will suffice you to know , that is why we have Protestantism today and many many non catholics thinking they are of the original Apostolic Catholic church through baptism when they have not been confirmed in the One body of Jesus Christ in the Catholic church. This is just the beginning of what Jesus revealed, and yet it appears you failed to comprehend the obvious in the Spiritual Reality.

Iam tempted to submit to scripture for all that I have said, but you leaving the conversation, I will conclude may the Holy Spirit reveal himself to you as you seek “TRUTH” and may the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.