The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[Della]

Supremely ironic that you wrote all that. Did you miss the part where Paul blames those responsible for that rather grave error in faith and morals:

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

So call Sha’ul, also called Paolo, the first protestant reformer. He also makes this statement:

And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me.

And here’s the whole of them, those leading the flock astray:

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.

And here’s the most damning line of all:

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If you…

In case you missed his point, we have the work known as Galatians because the rock that you claim your church was built on was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. We might expect his heirs to be subject to error as well, as he was. I might also expect that I too am subject to error. And when you say, anathema, that would be some from James, Cephas aka Peter, Barnabas, and those Jews there in Galatia. At least so long as they were preaching another gospel.

Lastly, so you can’t help but get the Protestant POV:

But when the Pope came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

And would help, rather immensely, if the Pope removed himself from your more temporal matters. Like dividing the world between Spain and Portugal, thereby leaving out both German and English commercial interests. Guess who became the Protestants?

For a bonus freebie, to answer Sha’ul’s also called Paolo’s question:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

Who bewitched us? Those came from James, Peter, Barnabas and those Jews here in Galatia, that’s who.

And for how grave the moral error on Peter’s part:

Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

That’s pretty egregious. So too is this:

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

You see, my friend, for a while there, or more correctly, for certain periods of time, the Jews were freed from the obligation of emperor worship and all that such entailed. They were instead supposed to offer sacrifice, etc., to their God in the name of Caesar (on Caesar’s behalf). Christians, on the other hand, had no such luck. And so some came from James and convinced Peter, and even Barnabas as well, to have the Gentiles adopt the appearance and customs of Jews of that time. For what you apparently don’t get here as well, recall here as well the thrice denial of his Lord. Same as it ever was…It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised,*** and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.*** And so one more denial of his Lord.

And I’m taking it as well that Sha’ul, also called Paolo, was himself persecuted by the Romans, physically, and had the scars to prove it:

Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

Now well and truly lastly, you entirely missed this part as well:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

That would apply to Peter, and even Barnabas. Why Sha’ul, also called Paolo, opposed Peter to his face, because he stood condemned. For preaching another gospel. Resulting, as the text reports, in some others being mutilated.

Um no. Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the Gentiles. Peter never “preached another Gospel.” Down through the centuries, many saints have told popes that they needed to do this or that differently, such as St. Catherine of Sienna, but not because the pope was theologically wrong, but because he needed to do something differently from what he had been doing. In the case of St. Catherine, she urged the pope to once again make Rome his seat of governance. I’m afraid you’ve made a mountain out of a mole hill with this one, and you may want to read a little more history than a few modern Protestant theologians before making statements about what constitutes “preaching another Gospel” as opposed to merely being wrong about how a pope should personally behave.

 

[Della]

Agreed, no one has disagreed with Dignitatis Humanae. But it would be strange if anyone did.

You wanted to keep me on the thread, did you have any further points?

I’m afraid I expressed no desire for you or me or anyone else to stay on the thread. I simply find that what you’ve posted doesn’t answer the points I’ve made. If you stay or go from the thread is entirely up to you, as it is for me, too.

 

[Peter_J]

So call Sha’ul, also called Paolo, the first protestant reformer.

Wait, wasn’t the first Protestant reformer St. John, the Baptist?

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[PRmerger]

I never intended any such thing, and am very surprised you thought I would.

Then, as I said, your comment was irrelevant.

Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.

#otiose

 

[PRmerger]

Lastly, so you can’t help but get the Protestant POV:

Firstly, welcome to the CAFs.

Secondly, you should know that there’s no such thing as the “Protestant POV”.

Protestantism is a behemoth of different POVs, with no one to speak authoritatively for what constitutes this “Protesant POV”.

IOW: who decides what the “Protestant POV” is regarding baptism: is it a sacrament? an ordinance? should it be done in infancy? or in adulthood? in a river? or by sprinkling?

Who decides what the “Protestant POV” is regarding the day of worship: is it Sunday? or Saturday?

Who decides what the “Protestant POV” is regarding women being ordained: is it permitted? or forbidden?

Who decides what the “Protestant POV” regarding where the Bible is silent–does that mean “if it’s not in the Bible it’s permitted”? (the Pill) or does that mean “if it’s not in the Bible it’s forbidden”? (praying the Rosary)

That would apply to Peter, and even Barnabas. Why Sha’ul, also called Paolo, opposed Peter to his face, because he stood condemned. For preaching another gospel. Resulting, as the text reports, in some others being mutilated.

How does one know what things Peter said which are a “different gospel” and what things he said are theopneustos?

What’s the canon for determining when he’s right and when he’s wrong?

 

[HereticAmI]

Um no. Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the Gentiles. Peter never “preached another Gospel.” Down through the centuries, many saints have told popes that they needed to do this or that differently, such as St. Catherine of Sienna, but not because the pope was theologically wrong, but because he needed to do something differently from what he had been doing. In the case of St. Catherine, she urged the pope to once again make Rome his seat of governance. I’m afraid you’ve made a mountain out of a mole hill with this one, and you may want to read a little more history than a few modern Protestant theologians before making statements about what constitutes “preaching another Gospel” as opposed to merely being wrong about how a pope should personally behave.

Friend, I hate to tell you this, but breaking table fellowship, to include what we now call communion, is a rather different thing than moving corporate HQ to Rome. And pity that there was rather more to the affair than just that.

You might instead start and end with:

*The Gospels…present Jesus encountering a stream of ritually impure and potentially polluting people, but in the encounter their contagion does not defile Jesus; rather his holiness purges their pollutions, renders them clean and integrates them again into the mainstream of Jewish society where they can reclaim their birthright, as it were, among the people of God.

---

What is at issue is purity, and the criteria by which others are deemed pure. The implication of the Galatians influencers was that purity and membership in God’s kingdom was not achieved except by following the old map – which is why Paul does go on to stress that if that is so, then logically, one must also follow the entire map (5:3), not just part of it.

The implication was that Christ had not purified the Gentiles and redrawn the map, and in turn, implied that Christ’s atoning death was ineffectual.*

That last is the other gospel that was being breached. No ex cathedra pronouncements to be found. Instead simply the conduct of those seeming to be pillars, persons of some repute. Why the whole notion of infallibility is largely irrelevant. We need rather more than that. Since not all conduct is personal, as Pope Francis could go on a serial killing spree, and in doing that he wouldn’t come close to implying that Christ’s atoning death was ineffectual as Peter rather clearly did. Peter may not have realized that such was what he was doing, but that is what he was doing. And we didn’t need an ex cathedra pronouncement to make it any more effectual.

Lastly, do you have even the first clue as to why Paul begins his whole spiel with a statement of his own credentials, to include his related statement that those seeming to be pillars, persons of some repute, conferred nothing on him? He wrote all that because if Peter was his superior then he had zero right to confront him in the fashion that he did. You don’t condemn your boss, your boss condemns you. Equals get to condemn each other. And so Paul states his claim to equality before he recites his condemnation of Peter.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;14328491]By your definition the Catholic Church holds sola scriptura! All Catholic Doctrines are consonant with Scripture. The CCC helpfully notes the Scripture that underlies its doctrines.

To be honest, and frank, it is your definition of sola scriptura which is inconsistent with its intended use. The true purpose of SS is to disavow the authority of the Church and exalt private judgement. Otherwise, SS is moot for the reason I mentioned. We can put a “Catholic” light on anything if we interpret it in a way that suits are desires. John Henry Newman was severely censured by the Anglican Church for doing exactly that with the 39 articles in Tract 90.

to be honest, it isn’t my definition. I was paraphrasing from the Lutheran Confessions:
We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

But if you take note of your wording “holding doctrine accountable to scripture;” there is a distinct call for judgement upon Church doctrine based on private judgement. It may not be explicit enough for some, but it is certainly implicit.

Actually, it isn’t. It is the Church that holds doctrine accountable, not the individual.

But all of that said, here is what I was responding to:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

Find me a reasonable document from a communion that claims any of this is covered under the principle of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[inocente]

Not to be a backseat poster, but the “” would appear to stem from missing my first question “You don’t accept, then, the existence of what many if not most of us call the Christian religion? Or do you not think that is includes Catholics?”

I live in Spain, where government forms ask whether you’re Catholic or “other religion”. It’s perfectly normal here to talk of Catholic religion and of other religions.

CA also talks of the Catholic religion - “The Catholic religion is the religion of the Catholic Church” - catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-the-roman-catholic-and-the-catholic-religion

So my usage was perfectly normal, and I decided my response would be sufficient if you were asking for clarification rather than confrontation.

Bro.

 

[inocente]

Then, as I said, your comment was irrelevant.

Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.

#otiose

:ehh:

I’ll send the following PM to the moderator then. Please comment first.

Dear Michael,

PRMerger is adamant that on the Apologetics forum, it’s prohibited to cite or quote from documents published on vatican.va. Please confirm.

Peace,
inocente

 

[PRmerger]

:ehh:

I’ll send the following PM to the moderator then. Please comment first.

Dear Michael,

PRMerger is adamant that on the Apologetics forum, it’s prohibited to cite or quote from documents published on vatican.va. Please confirm.

Peace,
inocente

Do you think he will ignore this one, too?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Actually, it isn’t. It is the Church that holds doctrine accountable, not the individual.

Yes. A church (like the Lutheran) which is guided by Sola Scriptura. A church guided by individuals rather than an infallible Apostolic Magisterium.

***In Catholicism there is NO holding of doctrine accountable to Scripture, not because it is not consonant with Scripture, because it always is, but because it is antecedent to Sacred Scripture. *** IOW, the Deposit of Faith, which has been entrusted to the Church has VERIFIED Sacred Scripture! That is HOW the canon was determined. The writings were held accountable to the Church’s doctrines! Writings that were not consonant with Church teaching were discarded from the canon, when the canon was being determined.

That is where the Christian Bible come from.

And, following this example, the Protestant ecclesial communities of the 16th c. discarded Scriptures that were not consonant with their own doctrines. That is WHY the Protestant bible has fewer books.

 

[Peter_J]

I live in Spain, where government forms ask whether you’re Catholic or “other religion”. It’s perfectly normal here to talk of Catholic religion and of other religions.

Fair enough. Your reaction to my questions seemed to call for a response.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. A church (like the Lutheran) which is guided by Sola Scriptura. A church guided by individuals rather than an infallible Apostolic Magisterium.

***In Catholicism there is NO holding of doctrine accountable to Scripture, not because it is not consonant with Scripture, because it always is, but because it is antecedent to Sacred Scripture. *** IOW, the Deposit of Faith, which has been entrusted to the Church has VERIFIED Sacred Scripture! That is HOW the canon was determined. The writings were held accountable to the Church’s doctrines! Writings that were not consonant with Church teaching were discarded from the canon, when the canon was being determined.

That is where the Christian Bible come from.

And, following this example, the Protestant ecclesial communities of the 16th c. discarded Scriptures that were not consonant with their own doctrines. That is WHY the Protestant bible has fewer books.

Indeed.

There is no other way to know which books are theopneustos, and which books are simply texts written by early Christians, except for one’s deference to the authority of the Catholic Church.

The kerygma came first, then came the Bible.

So there is no logical way for the kerygma to be “accountable” to the Bible.

 

[Peter_J]

:ehh:

I’ll send the following PM to the moderator then. Please comment first.

Dear Michael,

PRMerger is adamant that on the Apologetics forum, it’s prohibited to cite or quote from documents published on vatican.va. Please confirm.

Peace,
inocente

I don’t want to butt in, but since your post is a little heavy I read the statement that you quoted. “Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.” Seems like the real question should be, What does that mean?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t want to butt in, but since your post is a little heavy I read the statement that you quoted. “Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.” Seems like the real question should be, What does that mean?

Well, what **I **meant, as the author of that quote was this: it’s inutile to claim, “Well, the Church says we shouldn’t force people to be Catholic, and here’s the document where the Church says this!”.

No one here is arguing that we should coerce people into their religious practices.

So there’s no need to cite documentation of that.

It would be like saying on this thread: “Facebook is a form of social media!”

And then citing some authoritative source for this.

Umm…ok. But no one here has been arguing that FB isn’t a form of social media, so it’s a rather irrelevant tributary.

 

[inocente]

I don’t want to butt in, but since your post is a little heavy I read the statement that you quoted. “Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.” Seems like the real question should be, What does that mean?

You’re not butting in. I’ve known the other poster for a long while, and we’re just having a bit of fun sparring.

But on your substantive point, imho it’s commendable of the Church to promote religious freedom in the name of human dignity, just as it’s commendable that the Church promotes ecumenical dialog with the other churches.

Some posters may know all that and think everyone else does too, but this is a public forum, and I think it’s worth celebrating rather than being hidden away. Even if that may be unsatisfying to anyone hoping for fireworks, mentioning no names.

:grouphug:

 

[inocente]

I don’t want to butt in, but since your post is a little heavy I read the statement that you quoted. “Again: there should be no discussion, citing Magisterial documents, about the Church declaring our human right to religious freedom.” Seems like the real question should be, What does that mean?

You’re not butting in. I’ve known the other poster for a long while, and we’re just having a bit of fun sparring. Or at the least, it gave me a giggle.

On your substantive point, imho it’s commendable of the Church to promote religious freedom in the name of human dignity, just as it’s commendable that the Church promotes ecumenical dialog with the other churches.

Some posters may know all that and think everyone else does too, but this is a public forum, and I think it’s worth celebrating rather than being hidden away. Even if that may be unsatisfying to anyone hoping for fireworks. Build bridges not walls. There should always be discussion.

 

[Peter_J]

You’re not butting in. I’ve known the other poster for a long while, and we’re just having a bit of fun sparring.

Fair enough.

Oddly enough, I said to someone else this week that internet discussion forums don’t surprise me anymore, after all these years … but I need to revise that: the one thing that continues to surprise me is some of the choices that Protestants make in terms of teaming up with Catholic posters.

Well, it’s a free country, right? Heh, maybe if I spent a lot of time on a Protestant forum I’d form some interesting partnerships of my own.

 

[dreath]

Thank God when I go to sleep at night I know I am saved unlike Catholics! [SIGN][/SIGN]