J
jesse_james
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Sometimes I Feel, Protestants Really Do Understand Where Catholicism Came From, But Pride Is A Deadly Sin
- Status
K
KingAlfred
Guest
That’s our paradox, isn’t it? We strive for and say we want total unity, but down deep, we suspect that really wouldn’t be a good idea. Strangely enough, we need the Protestants, and they need us. I guess it goes back to Cartesian logic – thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis (the truth that’s found in the proverbial ‘middle’).
N
nilofc
Guest
When you’re elected mayor of a certain town…doesn’t it you get the same powers to govern, the key to the city, from the previous administrator.
But if you really insist on your logic…prove to us that Peter didn’t pass it down to his successor?
The burden of proof lies with the accuser.
If the early church fathers didn’t have this silly doubt then why do you think you know better?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Absurd? Hardly, my friend.
I think you’re making my case. You do realize all of the aspects of the Schism? And that the Orthodox/Eastern canons are different from the Catholic canons? And Coptic differences. Long before the 1500’s, OTCA.
I personally think that differences from each other can be gifts to each other, You might disagree.
O+
H
Harpazo
Guest
Shlom lokh,
Sadly, Catholics and Orthodox are both equally guilty of pride, which still keeps us from restored communion. Would you say it is pride that is keeping Protestants from embracing Apostolic Christianity (Orthodox or Latin Catholic)?
Also, would you consider Martin Luther’s motives of abandoning Indulgences, adopting Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as purely political? I don’t understand how they weren’t doctrinal changes. I’ll give Henry VIII the political card, but it also involved doctrine as well, i.e. divorce and remarriage.
Curious to see your take.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
M
Metamorphoo
Guest
I think that part of the issue is that Protestants have a different view of what constitutes “the Church.” We view it as the collective body of all who have genuine faith in Christ–regardless of denominational affiliation. Catholics have a more “institutional” perspective, as demonstrated by the view that “the Church” (i.e., the RCC) is infallible. While people may sin, “the Church” does not, from the Catholic perspective. Protestants typically do not understand Catholic thinking. That is why many Protestants think ridiculous the idea that, in spite of some of the evil popes that have existed in the history of the RCC, the RCC considers itself infallible.
In summary, when Catholics and Protestants speak of “the Church,” we are not speaking the same language.
Part of the issue, I believe, is that some clergy in the history of the RCC were ungodly in the extreme. A couple of the more notoriously evil popes were Alexander VI (1492-1503) and John XII (955-964), but there were a number of others, especially in the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation.
As an evangelical, I can tell you that while I can deal with a non-Christian in a place of secular authority, I cannot stomach the thought of opening myself up to the spiritual authority of an evangelical pastor or any other religious leader whose lifestyle clearly reveals that he is not a Christian. I would leave that church in a heartbeat and not have any qualms about doing so. From my perspective (and that of most evangelicals), a person’s lack of authentic relationship to Christ totally invalidates any genuine spiritual authority they may claim, in spite of the fact they may hold a particular office.
I have no doubt that at least a portion of those who left the RCC during the Protestant Reformation had similar sentiments that affect their decision to reject papal authority. How do you submit to the SPIRITUAL authority of a “vicar of Christ” who isn’t even a Christian? No doubt, many “Protestants” who revolted against papal authority were, in truth, more upset about the abuse of power of the pope’s secular leadership (e.g., heavy taxation) than they were about the moral bankruptness of particular RCC leaders. At any rate, the abuse of authority exhibited by some popes and leading clergy of that time resulted in a rejection of that authority by those who joined the Protestant Reformation. The RCC leadership had lost the trust of some of its sheep. When that trust was breached, it left a lot of room for those under the authority of the RCC to question the validity of RCC spiritual teachings.
I know that Catholics will often cite Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against His Church as the reason why the RCC claims that it cannot teach erroneous dogma. When evangelicals read that Scripture, we understand it to be His Promise that regardless of whatever evil Satan throws at the body of genuine followers of Christ, we will not be overcome (although we might have some setbacks from time to time).
I am not trying to pick a fight, I just am trying to explain how each side has a different perspective of what “Christ’s Church” actually is.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
It’s all pride above faith - and so regrettable. Plenty of fault to go around.
S
sambos671
Guest
Historical perspective? No it was an accusation and a statement:
Private judgement is only illogical when the premise is faulted and the process of arriving at the conclusion is faulted. Apart from that it is not. Reading the ECF many of them had personal opinions that many RC today may take issue with. I was supprised for instance the number of Catholics I’ve come accross who disagree with Augustine about original sin. Their and his are personal opinion yet both use scripture as their support. You see many disagreements with the ECF some violently. All using scripture. To me your statement is disingenuous. Especially when the Papal infallability doctrine is a relatively modern development in Catholic dogma and supposidly the purpose of it is to keep the Pope from teaching falsehoods in ExCathedra. Rather than saying what ever he wants.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
I know, the Orthodox broke off from Catholicism in 1054 in unity with the pope…but you won’t think so…
Our line of succession is still unbroken. Catholicism has and will always be there, regardless what you think.
G
GKC
Guest
Small quibble. Henry wasn’t looking for a divorce and a remarriage, but for a decree of nullity, a declaration that no sacramental and valid marriage had occurred, followed by a valid marriage ab initio. It was a very common event in the day, and Henry played by the rules.
GKC
T
Tomster
Guest
Protestant historians until modern times used to say there were two fundamental principles of the Reformation, an objective and subjective one. The former was the unique authority of Scripture, independent of tradition; the latter justifiction by faith alone without good works. While still important, these principles are now subordinated to a deeper issue from which they were both derived. Underlying them was the Protestant belief in the inspiration of the individual and the corresponding right of private judgment in matters of faith. Consequently, the real point of difference between Protestants and Catholics was not the canon or authority of Scripture, but who has the right of interpretation. Catholics believed the infallible Church, Protestants said the inspired or enlightened individual.
The dichotomy has not substantially changed. Against the Church’s claim that only she has the right to explain the inspired text, contemporary Protestants hold the opposite. They may not agree on the conditions required for valid interpretation, but on one point they all concur - it is not an ecclesiastical body and least of all the Catholic Church
Though widely different and apparently contradictory, two streams of thought came out of the original Lutheran concept of private interpretation. Divine grace through Jesus Christ speaks direcctly to the heart of the believer. Consistent with this principle, Luther threw out the so-called Apocryphal books, declared that in many places the Scriptures has erred and even conceded that another New Testament might be written to improve on the first one. His fundamentalist followers blandly teach that “Christians are individually taught by the Spirit of God, so that they are slaves to no one as they study the Scriptures. Each individiual believer is able by the grace of God to read the Scriptures for himself, receiving the benefit of divine illumination.” Extreme forms of this illuminism are found among the minor sects of Pentacostals, the Holiness movement. A variant of Bible individualism dispenses not only with special guidance of the Holy Spirit but with any kind of scientific inquiry into the proper meaning of the text. Since “the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and set forth in Scripture passages so clear that the learned and unlearned alike can understand them, they do not stand in need of ‘exigesis’ for explanation. If Scriptures did not have this quality, it would not be for all Christians ‘a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path,’ nor would all Christians be able to establish the truth of their faith by Scripture and in the light of Scripture to mark and avoid false teachers.” As an expression of biblical Protestantism, this statement could scarcely be improved. Sectarians who wished to hold on to some form of dogma could not follow Luther to the conclusion of his premises; that way lay chaos and the end of organized Christianity. Neither would they accept the Catholic magisterium. They took the middle course of setting up the Bible as the only and ultimate norm of Christian belief. Thus authority was met with authority, a book against an institution or, as the fundamentalists prefer, the word of God instead of the word of man.
continued
T
Tomster
Guest
However, the more common idea of private interpretation took Luther at his word. It seemed a trifle to insist to insist on a special illumination for interpeting the Scripture. Enough to know that everyone has a spark of the divine within him to sift the wheat from the chaff in the Bible and derive what he can from the wisdom of the ancients. His tools in the process are historical and literary criticism. With these he recovers the true Jesus of history. Following the lead of men like Harnack, for whom the Gospels are " not altogether useless as sources of history," and Bultmann, who marveled, “what a primitive mythology, that a divine being should become incarnate,” liberal Protestants still use the vocabulary of dogmatic Christians, but the no longer believe in the concepts. No major denomination has escaped the solvent of rationalism, not excluding traditionally conservative bodies. Lutheran churchman tell people “with new light and more adequate interpretation of the biblical writings, changes in doctrine are not only anticipated but necessary,” and although highly recommended as the literature of a nation, “the Episcopal Church does not ask you to make a formal statement of belief in the Bible.” You may, therefore, be a professed Christian and believe in the Scriptures, but you are not obliged to accept them as divinely inspired and still less hope to find there any security of doctrine.
Need I go any further?
Need I go any further?
S
sambos671
Guest
Somethings you mention are true and some things are not. Luther, for instance, is not a fundalmentalist. He never wanted to leave the Catholic Church but was excluded from fellowship. And of Luther’s entire thesis that he posted how many points were actually considered problematic by the church? The magesterium does not say there is not personal inspiration of the scripture but that personal inspiration cannot teach something apart or different from the magisterium. You can’t interpret in such a way that is contradictory to the magisterium (like having a new revelation like the Millerites). And you misunderstand Sole Fide. Good works are the result of faith. I.e. No good works salvation did not occur. But Salvation was not gained by good works. Different then how you mention it. I.e. The theif on the cross was able to be saved with out performing works other than recognizing Jesus and his guilt. However, I agree with you on the Holiness movement and pentacostalism which is a poor relative of Montanism. Remeber the Anglican Church is also protestant but they beleive in an ecclesiastic body for the determination of faith.
T
Tomster
Guest
Look, if we would define Protestantism by a short formula, we might call it subjective Christianity, whose positive contents are derived from Catholicism and whose radical error is a denial that faith belongs essentially to the intellect.
All that we know of Protestant culture points to its heavy emphasis on the subjective side of the Christian religion. Different churches had different orientations, but the general trend was the same. The “out-going” Catholic ritual centered in the Mass and directed to God was replaced by the “in-taking” sermon for the people; external forms of worship were removed in favor of internal meditation; interest in promoting the apostolate became an exclusive concern for one’s own destiny; doing good for others under the counsels turned into preoccupation with sin and the assurance that a believer was one of the saved. Where Catholicism made obedience to ecclesiastical authority one of the marks of a Christian, the Reformers assured their disciples that no society, however ancient and professedly divine, has a right to stand between the soul and her Creator. Where Catholic theology insisted on good works, and the practice of virtue and mortification, Protestants were told to rely entirely on faith; and where the Church required the sacraments as a condition for grace, the Reformation dispensed with these ordinances, even with Baptism, as a means of salvation.
But if Protestantism were sustained by subjectivism or negative elements only, it would have passed out of history long ago. It has positive elements and objective features, too, which are not properly its own but borrowed or derived from the Catholic religion. Mysteries of faith like the Incarnation and the Redemption, principles of Christian morality and methods of church government, ritual customs, forms of worship and even a Catholic vocabulary have entered the stream of Protestantism to give whatever vitality the inheritors of the Reformation still possess after centuries of separation from their common source.
The dependence on the Catholic Church is too widespread and universal to be analyzed. It is more than historical, and envelopes the sectarian bodies like an atmosphere. When someone described Protestantism as “a kind of parasite living upon the Church, one that would die should the Church die, one also that draws all its nutriment from the Church,” he was crude. But the principle he expressed is true.
G
GKC
Guest
Very true. And even then, the system was working as it was designed to work. Henry’s case, as to the Church custom re: a marriage with his brother’s wife (against the Levetical prohibition) was at least arguable (though there was a stronger argument available that he ignored) and was certainly as strong as was customary in such cases; see his sister’s causa in her own petition at roughly the same time. Accordingly, Henry had good reason to expect his case would end the same. It happened all the time. But he ran full tilt into politics.
GKC
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Why wouldn’t I think that?
I never said that it wasn’t, and I hope Catholicism endures forever.
I honestly do not know where you come from sometimes, OTCA. Sorry. I was simply replying that the Word of God/canon was changed by other traditions long before the Reformation.
Good lord…
O+
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Oh ok, sorry …Why wouldn’t I think that?
I never said that it wasn’t, and I hope Catholicism endures forever.
I honestly do not know where you come from sometimes, OTCA. Sorry. I was simply replying that the Word of God/canon was changed by other traditions long before the Reformation.
Good lord…
O+
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Not true. Not in the Catholic church.Why wouldn’t I think that?
I never said that it wasn’t, and I hope Catholicism endures forever.
I honestly do not know where you come from sometimes, OTCA. Sorry. I was simply replying that the Word of God/canon was changed by other traditions long before the Reformation.
Good lord…
O+
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Do you read my posts, or just argue because it’s me posting them?
I said in post #64:
I didn’t say Catholic folks had changed the canon. I said that the canon had been changed by folks long before Protestants made changes.
For the record, I don’t think the changes should have been made. However, being from the Anglican/Methodist side of the things, our lectionary includes the texts that are not in the Protestant canon.
You have really got to read the posts you disagree with, if for no other reason than to be sure you are disagreeing with them.
- Status