Confession may be a stumbling block for some protestants, but if you read from various apologetics, the biggest stumbling block seems to be Mary. Once they get past that roadblock, most protestants seem to accept everything what the Church teaches.I suppose it must be a stumbling block to some. It could be for ideological reasons, such as the old “why should I confess my sins to a mere human being when I can confess them directly to God?” or it could be for personal reasons of fear and embarrassment.
I think for more Protestants though Mary and the Pope are on the top of their lists of why they would never be Catholic.
Who and what are bishops ? When does the apostle john say truth is deposited ,when and to whom is the unction given. The epistles were sent to whom, bishops or to an entire congregation? If I were to send a letter to all the parishioners in your congregation is it only discernable by your priest or bishop ? The main problem we are having is that our definition of what the church was back then and what it is today is quite different. That is you think the structure was as it is today, and I say it is not. Was the role of presbyters to interpret scripture ?The canon of Sacred Scripture was not determined by just any “early believers”. It was determined by bishops of the Catholic Church.
May I ask how you know the book of Hebrews is the word of God? Did you determine this on your own?
It’s because they all deep down ascribe to the democratic method. It’s sort of like saying "the authority of interpretation of scriptures lies in the majority view of Protestantism ". That is the argument Alistair McGrath makes.You say “extreme” but those groups would disagree. And what gives you the authority to determine the Holy Spirit is not with those groups, but dwells with other groups?
No, I think you determined that the Holy Spirit is not with JW’s and Mormons with the way you framed the question. How did you come to that determination ?You say “extreme” but those groups would disagree. And what gives you the authority to determine the Holy Spirit is not with those groups, but dwells with other groups?
If I sent a letter to “the church poco hombre attends”Who and what are bishops ? When does the apostle john say truth is deposited ,when and to whom is the unction given. The epistles were sent to whom, bishops or to an entire congregation? If I were to send a letter to all the parishioners in your congregation is it only discernable by your priest or bishop ? The main problem we are having is that our definition of what the church was back then and what it is today is quite different. That is you think the structure was as it is today, and I say it is not. Was the role of presbyters to interpret scripture ?
I trust the authority of the Bishop in Rome.No, I think you determined that the Holy Spirit is not with JW’s and Mormons with the way you framed the question. How did you come to that determination ?
Then why did I ask in an earlier post (to PR I think) would you believe what you do even if everyone else does not ? That is NOT" go with the flow" or democracy.Protestant differences were born in in a minority, even in the face of death, That is not democracy.(Catholics when in minority also stood tall in face of death also at times)It’s because they all deep down ascribe to the democratic method. It’s sort of like saying "the authority of interpretation of scriptures lies in the majority view of Protestantism ". That is the argument Alistair McGrath makes.
Yes that is CC teaching and the reformation was totally unnecessary per Her view. Once right always right.The Apostolic Churches and primarily the Catholic Church are the only ones that have been steadfast in maintaining the dogmas of the Apostles.
Yes,I think.Don’t know what they taught.Be careful though what looks nice and right on the outside may not mean all is nice on the inside.Look at artificial birth control.
In the year 1920. EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH TAUGHT IT WAS IMMORAL.
Now…
Pretty much just the Catholic Church.
Is that the only reason why you know the Mormons etc are in error.trust the authority of the Bishop in Rome.
Yes, and let me ask you about the “whatever” is, what did you leave out ? I talked about the “whatever”-important element that should not be missed-8-9 posts earlier (PR)You rely on the authority of your pastor, or a pamphlet you read, or whatever.
Was Judaism (and it’s Hebrew bible) and Protestants the only ones to exclude books from the Septuagint ?Here’s another question: how many books does your OT have?
Yes,Was Judaism (and it’s Hebrew bible) and Protestants the only ones to exclude books from the Septuagint ?
Yes the Catholic Church would teach and believe what it does even when everyone else does not.Then why did I ask in an earlier post (to PR I think) would you believe what you do even if everyone else does not ? That is NOT" go with the flow" or democracy.Protestant differences were born in in a minority, even in the face of death, That is not democracy.(Catholics when in minority also stood tall in face of death also at times)
Yes that is CC teaching and the reformation was totally unnecessary per Her view. Once right always right.
Yes,I think.Don’t know what they taught.Be careful though what looks nice and right on the outside may not mean all is nice on the inside.
That is not apostolicIf I sent a letter to “the church poco hombre attends”
It would be addresses to the head pastor.
So would I. And any good pastor would lead, and pray we see it for ourselves also, not just take his word for it. To be “Berean” like is not just for pastors but for every believer, as per St.Paul.If there was disagreement among the congregation on what it meant, I would rely on the pastor to clarify it.
St Paul never advocated searching the Old Testament to find your own truth.That is not apostolic So would I. And any good pastor would lead, and pray we see it for ourselves also, not just take his word for it. To be “Berean” like is not just for pastors but for every believer, as per St.Paul.
Well, are we a democracy (US) ? NO. We are a republic, guided, restricted by by a constitution. I think the church is also(bible =constitution).The first council in Jerusalem and those that followed show that. Nothing wrong with voting,(or drawing straws ?) The CC struggled for at least 1500 years between balancing authoritative rule by council vs rule by Peter’s chair didn’t it, right up to Trent. So I have read.Protestantism is widely democratic. They elect elders and deacons and vote on bi laws and doctrinal issues.
No that’s not true.Well, are we a democracy (US) ? NO. We are a republic, guided, restricted by by a constitution. I think the church is also(bible =constitution).The first council in Jerusalem and those that followed show that. Nothing wrong with voting,(or drawing straws ?) The CC struggled for at least 1500 years between balancing authoritative rule by council vs rule by Peter’s chair didn’t it, right up to Trent. So I have read.
Who puts “own” in there? It is a misinterpretaion of what divine personal revelation means. That it is personal does not make it “private” that is apart from original intent of God. Just like CC magisterium won’t say this is their “own” interpretation but what they believe is God’s perspective. What you should also not put in there is that only bishops need search the scriptures. Pretty sure none of the epistles were addressed to bishops.That is what i menat by being apostolic. Even the writings between Corinth and Rome during a controversy were not written to respective bishops but to the entire “church at Rome/Corinth”.St Paul never advocated searching the Old Testament to find your own truth.
Just that ? Not for teaching,correcting,reproving etc etc.?He advocated searching the scriptures to prove Christ fulfilled the prophecies for messiah.
Amen, The Holy Spirit that inspired the writing inspires the interpretation and understanding to the reader.In fact, all of Paul’s Epistles are letters of correction and instruction to the churches. To get everyone on the same page. To tell them how it is.
AmenThe Bishops always acted together and in unison as best they could.
Yes and no.A heretic goes against church teaching. I would not make presbyter/bishop only focal point. If someone came to you and started teaching that Christ came not in the flesh, you yourself could not say that is against church teaching, that is heretical, or wrong or anathema ? Would you say,“Gee, I am not sure. Let me ask my bishop” ? Do you as part of the church not believe Christ came in the flesh ? Do you only believe it because your bishop told you ? Of course it goes deeper doesn’t it ? Of course if you want to censure,excommunicate the heretic, that is where the congregation with it’s bishop carry full weight.The folks that acted against the bishops were called HERETICS.
Yes and no.A heretic goes against church teaching. I would not make presbyter/bishop only focal point. If someone came to you and started teaching that Christ came not in the flesh, you yourself could not say that is against church teaching, that is heretical, or wrong or anathema ? Would you say,“Gee, I am not sure. Let me ask my bishop” ? Do you as part of the church not believe Christ came in the flesh ? Do you only believe it because your bishop told you ? Of course if you want to censure,excommunicate the heretic, that is where the congregation with it’s bishop carry full weight.Who puts “own” in there? It is a misinterpretaion of what divine personal revelation means. That it is personal does not make it “private” that is apart from original intent of God. Just like CC magisterium won’t say this is their “own” interpretation but what they believe is God’s perspective. What you should also not put in there is that only bishops need search the scriptures.
Just that ? Not for teaching,correcting,reproving etc etc.?
Amen, The Holy Spirit that inspired the writing inspires the interpretation and understanding to the reader.
Amen
“If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it’s not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a republic”. - See more at: thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/03/usa-democracy-or-republic#sthash.ygsIimAj.dpufNo that’s not true.
We are a democracy meaning majority rules.
Yes, even we ourselves are not what we used to be. Even a constitutional republic is privy to self molding to the times, unfortunately.If we gave our constitution to every country, it would be up to them how their branches of govt interpret it and especially their judiciary.
I would not deny of molding to the times for our churches, including CC, as in our country. By the grace of God we have stood strong at times, but not always.So too with Protestants and the Bible.
That’s a good analogy for the Catholic Church. I will use it again.
Can you give an example of doctrines the Catholic Church has changed…ever?“If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it’s not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a republic”. - See more at: thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/03/usa-democracy-or-republic#sthash.ygsIimAj.dpuf
Yes, even we ourselves are not what we used to be. Even a constitutional republic is privy to self molding to the times, unfortunately.
I would not deny of molding to the times for our churches, including CC, as in our country. By the grace of God we have stood strong at times, but not always.
Trust me. You or I would not want to go back to the way it was before the reformation. As C.S. Lewis said ,“Those ignorant of the history are slaves to the recent past”. The last hundred years, even the 2nd Vatican has given great strides towards unity and toleration and understanding. It took centuries after Luther to allow a Catholic church at one end of main street and a Protestant at the other.Yes and no.A heretic goes against church teaching. I would not make presbyter/bishop only focal point. If someone came to you and started teaching that Christ came not in the flesh, you yourself could not say that is against church teaching, that is heretical, or wrong or anathema ? Would you say,“Gee, I am not sure. Let me ask my bishop” ? Do you as part of the church not believe Christ came in the flesh ? Do you only believe it because your bishop told you ? Of course if you want to censure,excommunicate the heretic, that is where the congregation with it’s bishop carry full weight.
What you seem to miss poco, maybe you are just thinking within your church, but…
EACH AND EVERY PROTESTANT PASTOR and in some cases denomination, MAKES THEIR OWN AUTHORITY!
and each individual does.
If you and I were elders at your church and we had to determine how to do baptism. We would argue. We would point to the scriptures and discuss. We would bring others in. But at the end a decision has to be made. Let’s say I outnumber you in the votes of other pastors and elders, or the church votes and agrees to follow my interpretation.
Your conscience does not allow you to remain on the church do you oh start another one that “truly follows the Bible”
Then over generations, this process repeats thousands of times with thousands of issues.
Wham you have Protestantism today.
But how could you ever know, which modern understanding was the Holy Spirits?
You can’t unless one of the churches could show you that it’s teachings and line of authority traces to Christ himself.
Only the orthodox/Catholic Churches can do that.
ALL OF the rest followed a man with a divergent view at some point.