Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[stewstew03]

Exactly.

So Mlon was being a little inconsistent, no?

Again, that is like saying someone is not appealing to Shakespeare when he quotes from “Romeo and Juliet.”

Yes. I am certain that Mlon was not intending irony. Or inconsistency.

But that is what it was.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

As the 7 sacraments were all established by Christ, to exclude one or any of them is to be deficient in the receiving the graces Christ furnishes for us.

Perhaps, but it would also be begging the question. You’re assuming the Catholic dogma of seven sacraments and then using that as a criteria for determining which church is the Catholic church.

The first person to think about the sacraments systematically was Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite around AD 500. He listed the sacraments as consisting of Baptism, the Eucharist, and Anointing, as well as ordination, monastic consecration, and funerals. Was he not Catholic?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Excellent.

Then what you have acknowledged is that the charism of infallibility was given to the CC. On multiple occasions. At least as it applies to discerning the canon of the NT.

This is a huge admission, Per Crucem. Huge! :extrahappy:

I don’t know if it’s huge. How many Christians do not believe the early church got it right?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Seriously?

I am astonished that you would deny the importance of such a thing!

You may consider it important, but that doesn’t establish it’s importance. At least, not in an apostolic sense.

 

[Porknpie]

Wait a minute lets not get carried away or twist my point. The only infallible person who walked this earth is Jesus Christ. Even the disciples showed they were at times fallible. As Paul stated in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”

Mlon,

One has to understand scripture in what the author meant to convey. The key word here is ALL.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 3

4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.

Do you believe that every single person in ALL of Judea went out to John the Baptist? I’ll ignore the word “Whole”…

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps, but it would also be begging the question. You’re assuming the Catholic dogma of seven sacraments and then using that as a criteria for determining which church is the Catholic church.

Ok. It doesn’t matter to me, actually, if we use the criteria of 7 sacraments.

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t know if it’s huge. How many Christians do not believe the early church got it right?

Per Crucem,

Actually, It is huge believing that the

• Council of Rome in 382
• Synod of Hippo in 393
• Synod of Carthage in 397

all determined infallibly the 73 books of the OT and NT. In the NT where we have agreement, 27 books out of several hundred writings that were in circulation. The Church recognized the 73 books as inerrant and inspired based on the apostolic faith.

Then someone came along 1,100 years later and moved 7 books to the back of the protestant bible and then a printing press removed them completely.

Interesting though that the 1611 KJV had 73 books.

Who had the authority to remove them after 1,100 years??

Strangest thing and not in a good way.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

Mlon,

One has to understand scripture in what the author meant to convey. The key word here is ALL.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 3

4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.

Do you believe that every single person in ALL of Judea went out to John the Baptist? I’ll ignore the word “Whole”…

PnP

Clearly, not.

For while Matthew says that “all Judea and all the country about Jordan” went to see John, and were baptized…

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 3:4-6[/BIBLEDRB]

Luke says that not everyone was baptized in Judea

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 7:28-30[/BIBLEDRB]

So I think it’s clear that “all” cannot mean “all, without a single exception”.

In fact, it it does not mean that there are exceptions, then a Muslim can very easily use that verse to state, "See? Even your very own Scriptures say that Jesus was a sinner like everyone else, for do you not believe that “all have sinned”?

 

[PRmerger]

You may consider it important, but that doesn’t establish it’s importance. At least, not in an apostolic sense.

That, frankly, is absurd. You want to talk about “apostolic”, as it applies to the Church today, yet want to deny that “apostolic succession” is of any great import.

 

[PRmerger]

How many Christians do not believe the early church got it right?

Well, since Catholicism is the majority of Christendom, that means pretty many Christians do believe the early church got it right.

And, actually, as I write this, it turns out that since every single Christian denomination (save this one) believes in the 27 book canon of the NT, I would have to answer: 99.9% of Christians believe that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right.

 

[steido01]

That, frankly, is absurd. You want to talk about “apostolic”, as it applies to the Church today, yet want to deny that “apostolic succession” is of any great import.

Why does maintaining the Apostolic Teaching require Apostolic tag?

 

[Per_Crucem]

That, frankly, is absurd. You want to talk about “apostolic”, as it applies to the Church today, yet want to deny that “apostolic succession” is of any great import.

What you haven’t demonstrated is that the apostles ever taught anything about it. You know, from those earliest of church writings

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well, since Catholicism is the majority of Christendom, that means pretty many Christians do believe the early church got it right.

And, actually, as I write this, it turns out that since every single Christian denomination (save this one) believes in the 27 book canon of the NT, I would have to answer: 99.9% of Christians believe that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right.

Yes. So, if 99% of them think the early church got it right, then why do you consider it huge that I believe they got it right?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem,

Actually, It is huge believing that the

• Council of Rome in 382
• Synod of Hippo in 393
• Synod of Carthage in 397

all determined infallibly the 73 books of the OT and NT. In the NT where we have agreement, 27 books out of several hundred writings that were in circulation. The Church recognized the 73 books as inerrant and inspired based on the apostolic faith.

Then someone came along 1,100 years later and moved 7 books to the back of the protestant bible and then a printing press removed them completely.

Interesting though that the 1611 KJV had 73 books.

Who had the authority to remove them after 1,100 years??

Strangest thing and not in a good way.

PnP

Well, they weren’t removed until the 1800s. So I am not sure what the point is? Moving them to the back? Well, I am not sure that their placement really matters all that much. Luther’s Bible was not the only one of its time to change their location (the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Jimenez, for example). As far as I know, it was only the later Anglicans and Presbyterians who rejected them.

As for the infallible declaration of the early church councils, again, it’s almost irrelevant to me. It’s great and all that Catholics consider them to be infallible. Since I have no infallible way to know they were infallible, it is, IMO, just superfluous.

 

[dronald]

Mlon,

One has to understand scripture in what the author meant to convey. The key word here is ALL.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 3

4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.

Do you believe that every single person in ALL of Judea went out to John the Baptist? I’ll ignore the word “Whole”…

PnP

You’re actually misinterpreting this; the passage is clearly speaking of location and not amount of people which is evident from the second part: * “and the whole region of the Jordan”*

The entire region of Judea and the entire region of Jordan had people coming from there, not all the people who live in Judea and all the people who live in Jordan.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. So, if 99% of them think the early church got it right, then why do you consider it huge that I believe they got it right?

I think it’s huge for you to admit it.

Most folks won’t do it.

The conversation goes something like this analogy;

Catholic on CAF: Female mammals produce milk. Cows produce milk. Therefore cows are mammals.

Protestant on CAFS: I will agree with you on your first 2 points. But let’s just agree to disagree on your conclusion.

That you are able to say “Therefore cows are mammals!” is a huge admission for a Protestant.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re actually misinterpreting this;

This is interesting, dronald.

Are you not of the position that individuals are free to read the Bible and come to their own conclusions?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. So, if 99% of them think the early church got it right, then why do you consider it huge that I believe they got it right?

And let’s just go with where it leads, now that you have acknowledged that the CC got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT.

This means, necessarily that

1. You are not Sola Scriptura, but defer to an outside authority for telling you the Word of God.
2. You believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

These conclusions are also huge, Per Crucem. Huge!

 

[Porknpie]

Well, they weren’t removed until the 1800s. So I am not sure what the point is? Moving them to the back? Well, I am not sure that their placement really matters all that much. Luther’s Bible was not the only one of its time to change their location (the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Jimenez, for example). As far as I know, it was only the later Anglicans and Presbyterians who rejected them.

Point is… who had the authority (1,100 years later) and infallibility from Jesus Christ himself, over the Church, who around year 400, based on the apostolic faith, declared the deutercanonicals to be both inspired and inerrant?

As for the infallible declaration of the early church councils, again, it’s almost irrelevant to me.

In should be very relevant. That’s real problem then for you because you believe that these infallible Church councils still got it right on the 66 books in your bible. You might as well as throw it away because you really can not know for certain then, that the books in your bible are the Written Word of God. Either the the Church was infallible in determining all 73 books or they weren’t.

It’s great and all that Catholics consider them to be infallible.

Leveraging PRs comment, nearly all of Christendom considers them to be infallible at least in determining 66 books in the bible as inspired and inerrant. You do understand that there were several hundred NT writings that they had to discern from in recognizing just 27?

Since I have no infallible way to know they were infallible, it is, IMO, just superfluous.

I have to look up words like that. I’m a simple boy from Chicago.

Superfluous: beyond what is needed : not necessary



No it is absolutely necessary that you know that the Church councils were infallible. Otherwise you really have no idea, no confidence at all the books in your bible are the Written Word of God. And you don’t know then if you are missing books that should be included.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

You’re actually misinterpreting this; the passage is clearly speaking of location and not amount of people which is evident from the second part: * “and the whole region of the Jordan”*

The entire region of Judea and the entire region of Jordan had people coming from there, not all the people who live in Judea and all the people who live in Jordan.

Dronald,

That’s your opinion in reading the text.

Reading this literally, I could say the WHOLE region…everyone in the region…came out. Previous to this the author said ALL and is emphasizing that every soul, women, men, children and infants came out.

Of course I do not propose this, just point out that scripture needs to be interpreted in light of what the author was trying to say.

In saying “all have sinned” the author was not saying Mary sinned or that Jesus sinned." Thinking such is poor exegesis, not in keeping with the apostolic faith.

PnP