M
MonicaC
Guest
Yeah but what “Sola Scriptura”? The one that is the protestant bible with the missing books. You know the one that man took out to benifit his own needs.
I would be very careful with that thought.
Monica
- Status
I would be very careful with that thought.
Monica
S
scylla
Guest
I am not sure if you understood my point or just wanted to stir things up. But I will elaborate.
Catholicism is the Church Jesus Christ founded with one faith, one baptism one unified faith.
Having different interpretations of the Gospel is evil. This is why.
There are either 66 books of the Bible or 73.
There is either one Church Jesus Christ founded or it doesn’t matter which Church you belong to.
I can start one next week and you could go to it and doctrine doesn’t matter.
This would be saying Jesus started a Church for nothing and we ignore His founding of a Church. Which is essentially saying that what Jesus did didn’t matter. Or what He taught didn’t matter.
Truth matters, that is why we can’t just have a big tent, ala Uniterianism .
You are always welcome to come home to the Church Jesus Christ established. You didn’t start Lutheranism, Luther did. He was always welcome to reconcile himself with the Church.
I vaguely understand how his concience made him say Here I stand, I can do not other. And probably he felt he had no choice, yet I am sure at seeing the fruit this he might think otherwise. I will read more on his dilemma and tonight will watch something I recorded about him.
I am going to watch a Journey Home Roundtable tonight which features 3 Lutheran pastors who came home to the Catholic Church again to better understand Lutherans.
I am not too qualified to talk to Lutherans regarding beliefs as I came from an Evangelical\Nondenominational background before I came back to the Catholic Church.
God Bless
Scylla
A
Angainor
Guest
KnightErrantJR:
Good question. Go ask the pope.
One hundred and eighty more than one to be exact.
A
Angainor
Guest
Oh, I agree. That’s why I don’t understand the purpose of this thread. This thread appears to be lamenting the fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations. We agree that a big tent is not the answer. What answer do you propose?
My approach is to defer to Romans 14:4 and be responsible for my own understanding of the truth. The only exception appears to be Catholicism. I can’t quite bring myself to leave it alone. Probably because of comments like this:
You could not have said anything more infuriating to me. I have to remind myself that you do not realize that you just slapped my in the face and spit in my eye, otherwise I might get really angry.
You know perfectly well that I am not welcome in Catholicism. It wouldn’t be long before someone asked me something on the order of “Do you believe Mary was immaculately conceived?” I would say “no”. That would put an end to that “welcome” nonsense.
I wouldn’t give this a second thought except Catholicism goes on to declare me outside of the “Church Jesus Christ established”.
How outrageous. How audacious. How utterly arrogant. So much for Romans 14:4.
I could just as easily ask that if Leo X saw the fruit would he still excommunicate Luther. “I can do no other” means just that. Of course he wouldn’t do otherwise. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
B
bekalc
Guest
Angainer. Did anyone here say that you were outside the Catholic Church. Please understand that Catholic doctrine does have a concept of the mystical Church. We believe that everyone who goes to heaven is in someways Catholic, even if they are imperfectly here on earth. By your baptism your united to the Church…We cannot pursume to say who God will damn and who God won’t damn.
But may I point out that many Protestants take Jesus words "I am the way the truth, and the Life, no one can come to the father except through me. They take these words to mean that the person who has never heard the gospel, they will be condemned to Hell. Catholicism does not teach/belief this. We believe God gives every man some form of a revelation and the person will be judged on that. After all Jesus died for all men…
Still the point is that Jesus Christ made certain truth claims too, his claims of being the one way to God, didn’t go to well and still doesn’t go to well to many. Why do Protestants hold to that and frankly interpert it father than Catholics go, and yet call us Catholics arogant for saying that our Church was the Church founded by Christ.
Other churches don’t/cannot claim this because they don’t have the credentials. But our Church can claim this because we have what we say is an unbroken line of apostolic succession. We also have a very different concept of the Church than Protestants have. A big part of this concept comes through Scripture. Don’t yell at us for claiming what we always claimed, long before by Luther came into being. We don’t accept Protestant interpertations of the Church…
I also want to point out that Romans 14:4 deals with a dispute in the Roman Church over food. It does not deal with a dispute over how to interpert Scripture. No where in Scripture does it say, if you disagree with your brother on a major part of the gospel, hey just form a new church! If this was the case when the Judaizers were telling the Gentiles to circumcize, the apostles would have just told the Judaizers, “go ahead” start your own church and I will start my Church! That’s not what happened… Each individual deciding for themselves what to believe/not to believe on major parts of the gospel message, is not mandated by Scripture, and is rather very much opposed. See Acts 15.
Also I would like to point out that Peter himself warns about private interpertation of Scripture. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (1 Peter Chapter 1:20-21.)
This verse than translates into the very next chapter, and its important to note that the Chapters were created after Peter wrote. Peter goes on to warn about people 1
1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2
Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3
In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.
In another area Peter warns about how people are twisting Paul’s words, interesting that he singles out Paul being twisted, just like the twist other Scripture to their own destruction. Thats a pretty clear understanding that Scripture can be twisted and it is not our own private interpertations that should be guiding our way.
4
T
tjmiller
Guest
Lucifer:
the first Protestant…
the first Protestant…
R
RobNY
Guest
Besides Marsilius of Padua, his contemporary, William of Ockham, and other somewhat contemporary movements, i.e., Lollardy, do these beliefs have any deeper roots? That the Church immediately recognized these ideas as wrong, and that they have scant to no support in the Fathers makes me wary about them. How about early than 1000? I realize that Luther simply did not create things out of a vacuum, but if his roots are just a few hundred years older than him, then that still isn’t a legitimate foundation for Christianity.
You know my opinon on this, I believe.
You’re welcome, but that doesn’t change the need to conform your beliefs to what the Church teaches. I understand that you think such things as the Immaculate Conception are disputable, and yet the CC understands otherwise. This is where the Romans 14 principle breaks down in practice. Who do you propose has the authority to decide what is and what isn’t disputable? If the Church has that authority, then she has exercised it and needs to be followed. If the Church doesn’t have that authority, then who does? At what point do we say, ‘this is not disputable?’ To Calvinists who deny the Real Presence? They very much think that the Real Presence is indisputable, but a Lutheran or Catholic in their right mind would never give it up. My conclusion is that the Church is the final arbiter of whether something is disputable or not, and when she speaks, you listen. So much for the Romans 14 principle, indeed, in lieu of an authority to decide what is and isn’t disputable. I think you emphasize the freedom of the Christian at the expense of other important aspects.
As for the claim that you are outside the Church Christ established, this is just another case where we have two groups disagreeing fundamentally on what constitutes a disputable principle. According to the CC, it is not a disputable princple, and as such we cannot do otherwise than assert it.
A
Angainor
Guest
1 Cor 10:29
Understand, I possess a set of beliefs that represent the truth as I believe it to be. It is perfectly fair for you to try to convince me that something I hold to be true is actually false. “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” 1 Tim 5:21
That is not what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to abandon my understanding of the truth, abandon my conscience. I wouldn’t know how to begin “conforming my beliefs”. Each step away from my conscience would be a step of blind faith away from what I understand to be the truth and toward the thing called “Catholicism”. It would tear me up. There would be nothing left of my soul. I was not meant to put my blind faith in “Catholicism”. You may as well ask me to commit idolatry.
I don’t expect you to follow my conscience. This all must seem very strange to you. You must think that I think I hold the perfect, pristine truth. It is not like that. I know my understanding is incomplete. Yet I believe what I believe. All I can do in this life is trust in the truth as I understand it while at the same time constantly try to improve that understanding.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There is a great deal of agreement - this is what so impressed C.S.Lewis, and made his book “Mere Christianity” possible. If people look only for disagreement, they will see nothing else 
It does - and it quotes a Vatican II document to do so; Lumen Gentium, IIRC
There’s a lot of truth in that - but it’s not all the truth about the disagreements between them. Some were more conciliatory than others - Zwingli is an excellent example in this; and Bucer, I think. And Melanchthon. It’s a pity, and very inaccurate, to treat all the Reformers as though they were all intolerant fire-brands. A lot of what they did protest against, invited exactly that reaction.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi AllThat’s exactly what I thought, that the devil was part of the Reformation.
Your right in the fact that satan played a big part in the Reformation. It was satan that caused the leaders of the Catholic church to become corrupt, which brought about the need for a reformation in the church.
Thanks.
P
Paris_Blues
Guest
Yeah but NOT the kind of reformation where men make their own “church”! I don’t think anyone gave them authority to do so except themselves.
Especially when Truth got distorted and turned upside down…that went a little too far. :tsktsk:
What a bummer!
X
x4us
Guest
Dear NonDenom - something to think about: in the Old Testament, time and time again the children of Israel God sinned against God - big time sins: Baal worship 
, marrying pagan wives and adopting their sinful practices 
, the Pharisees adding countless burdens on the children of Israel by their legalistic practices -** but never once did the Lord say to one of His OT prophets, “These people have become too corrupt - break away from them and build a new, holier synagogue down the street.”**
Think about that very carefully - there were many times in the OT when the Jewish people needed reform - and they suffered the natural consequences of their sinnful behavior - but the Lord never once sent a “reformer” who insisted that a new, more righteous sect break away from the Jewish nation. *There is absolutely no scriptural precident in the OT for a “reformation” like the one led by Luther. * True reform is very different from mutiny - and face it, that’s what the Reformation was - mutiny.
Luther started out wanting to work within the system and reform it; he could have been another St. Francis of Assisi (a true reformer) if he had worked with humility to solve the problems that the Catholic Church admits were in need of change. Instead, Luther began to become filled with pride at his own importance and power, and he began a mutiny. He turned against the ordained leaders God had put in a position over him - Luther wanted to take the wheel of the ship himself.
I am a convert from the Evangelical church. I did a personal study of the lives of Luther and St. Francis of Assisi and compared them. From my reading, Luther seemed prideful, petulant, vulgar and self-absorbed. That contrasts greatly with the true gentleness, humility, and integrity of St. Fransic of Assisi. If you are interested in learning about a real reformer, I urge you to learn more about the life of St. Francis of Assisi.
Mutiny is not reformation. Your sister in Christ, Kate
, marrying pagan wives and adopting their sinful practices , the Pharisees adding countless burdens on the children of Israel by their legalistic practices -** but never once did the Lord say to one of His OT prophets, “These people have become too corrupt - break away from them and build a new, holier synagogue down the street.”**Think about that very carefully - there were many times in the OT when the Jewish people needed reform - and they suffered the natural consequences of their sinnful behavior - but the Lord never once sent a “reformer” who insisted that a new, more righteous sect break away from the Jewish nation. *There is absolutely no scriptural precident in the OT for a “reformation” like the one led by Luther. * True reform is very different from mutiny - and face it, that’s what the Reformation was - mutiny.
Luther started out wanting to work within the system and reform it; he could have been another St. Francis of Assisi (a true reformer) if he had worked with humility to solve the problems that the Catholic Church admits were in need of change. Instead, Luther began to become filled with pride at his own importance and power, and he began a mutiny. He turned against the ordained leaders God had put in a position over him - Luther wanted to take the wheel of the ship himself.
I am a convert from the Evangelical church. I did a personal study of the lives of Luther and St. Francis of Assisi and compared them. From my reading, Luther seemed prideful, petulant, vulgar and self-absorbed. That contrasts greatly with the true gentleness, humility, and integrity of St. Fransic of Assisi. If you are interested in learning about a real reformer, I urge you to learn more about the life of St. Francis of Assisi.
Mutiny is not reformation. Your sister in Christ, Kate
X
x4us
Guest
Dear NonDenom - something to think about: in the Old Testament, time and time again the children of Israel God sinned against God -
There was a typo in my first sentence - it should read; “time and time again the children of Israel sinned against God. . .” I thought I hit “preview post” but I hit "submit reply.
S
SolaChristo
Guest
Dear NonDenom - something to think about: in the Old Testament, time and time again the children of Israel God sinned against God - big time sins: Baal worship
This is true. What the children of Isreal needed to do was repent of their idolitry and return to God. To this day much of what was needed refroming hasa yet to be repented of by Catholics. I refuse to get to specifics because many will use it as an excuse to label me as a Catholic basher. Bottom line the church needed reformation those in leadership refused the needed reformation tried every which way to justify themselves and to this day claim the authority to place hrsh burdens on people.
Think about that very carefully - there were many times in the OT when the Jewish people needed reform - and they suffered the natural consequences of their sinnful behavior - but the Lord never once sent a “reformer” who insisted that a new, more righteous sect break away from the Jewish nation. *There is absolutely no scriptural precident in the OT for a “reformation” like the one led by Luther. * True reform is very different from mutiny - and face it, that’s what the Reformation was - mutiny.
Luther started out wanting to work within the system and reform it; he could have been another St. Francis of Assisi (a true reformer) if he had worked with humility to solve the problems that the Catholic Church admits were in need of change. Instead, Luther began to become filled with pride at his own importance and power, and he began a mutiny. He turned against the ordained leaders God had put in a position over him - Luther wanted to take the wheel of the ship himself.
I am a convert from the Evangelical church. I did a personal study of the lives of Luther and St. Francis of Assisi and compared them. From my reading, Luther seemed prideful, petulant, vulgar and self-absorbed. That contrasts greatly with the true gentleness, humility, and integrity of St. Fransic of Assisi. If you are interested in learning about a real reformer, I urge you to learn more about the life of St. Francis of Assisi.
Also consider that the system was unwilling to be reformed there was no other way.
Mutiny is not reformation. Your sister in Christ, Kate
S
SolaChristo
Guest
If and when Catholics are willing to repent of pre reformation excesses then the true church of God will become more united. If the blame is always on the reformers and never about repentance Gods church will do just fine without you.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
No Protestant sect actually believes in Sola Scriptura. If one examines the beliefs of any Protestant sect, one finds that the sect believes in both scripture and tradition. Unfortunately the tradition that gives the sect its unique identity is a tradition often based on a false interpretation of scripture. Southern Baptists and Lutherans both claim to believe in Sola Scriptura, but Southern Baptists accept a tradition of interpreting scripture that leads them to reject infant baptism and embrace the heresy of antinomianism – things that Lutherans reject.
If Protestantism stood as one monolithic entity united in doctrine, one could admit that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura might have some validity. But since the reality of Protestantism is thousands of bickering sects divided over doctrine, no sane person can accept the protester’s claims of Sola Scriptura with any degree of seriousness.
The divisions manifest within Protestantism is indeed the work of the devil!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is where you seriously need to read history. We DID repent of
pre-reformation excesses. Historians call it the counter-reformation.
What we didn’t repent of was the teachings rec. from the Apostle, which the Church had believed for 1500 years.
C
ChiFaithful
Guest
So are you saying that Catholics are not part of God’s church? If so, thanks, but don’t bother posting again because I won’t read it.
I’m not a big fan of this thread, since it is very divisive and doesn’t adhere to the teachings of unity that the Pope stands for.
S
SolaChristo
Guest
When reading over this thread I not once saw someone place the blame on the Catholic hierachy but all the blame was put on the protestants-----thats a lot of what Im talking about (not all) but a lot.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, my popes and their numbers tend to get confused before Pius IX in the mid to late 1800’s, but one of the post-reformation popes processed in mourning (I think it entailed ashes and a noose around his neck, but I’m not sure) through the streets of Rome as penance and reparation for the sins of some of the hierarchy. Also, did you read post #40?
- Status