- Status
Z
zz912
Guest
How do you bring your gifts to the altar as Jesus commanded? Do you have an altar?
How is one supposed to bring their brother to the Body of Christ if it is not an institution?
How is an apostate supposed to be denied communion with the institution if there is no institution?
Sorry, but your theory falls apart when compared to these instructions. It’s very clear the Church MUST be a visible institution.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I am terribly sorry, but you have misunderstood the whole process of this conversation.
The OP asked how Protestants respond to the Bible passage. I listed three of the ways in which different Protestants respond to it, i.e. describing the responses, not validating any of them.
You then gave a Catholic response on the topic. This response in no way invalidates the descriptive accuracy of my comment: howsoever Catholics might feel about them, those are ways in which Protestants respond to that idea.
Judging by your later comments, you imagination that response to have been a refutation of my comment, when it is simply a contrasting claim to the ones which I described.
Considering that I have not claimed any such thing, I cannot figure out what you are reading this one into.
As noted above, you have misunderstood the conversation. The comment about why churches disagree was, once more, a description. Further, it is a description of the causation of disagreement. Your self-approved comment does not address the causation of disagreement.
In other words, you are still arguing with something which I have not said.
Sorry, but the conversation which is happening here is clearly not the one which you imagine to be happening.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I think that friend Abu is very enthusiastic about his(?) particular viewpoint, and has, in this case, allowed it to distract him from reading what is actually being discussed.I cannot tell that Abu has any interest or desire in understanding the point of view of others. He seems quite fixated on just promoting his own believes, and smashing others over the head with them, in the hopes that they will enter into their minds and hearts.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I can hardly disagree with that, but I would point out that establishing which elements of the Church are divine is rather challenging.
In which particular aspect? I cannot recall a passage which says, “It is better to agree without thinking than it is to thoughtfully disagree.”
Are what is and what ought to be the same? (At last Hume gets a look in.)
I agree that, ideally, the Church ought to be divinely maintained, but I cannot see any justification for the claim that that is true.
The problem with a claim to oral tradition is the untraceability of that tradition: should an idea enter the stream of oral tradition below the fountainhead, even well below it, all it needs is to be mixed in a little before it cannot be clearly discriminated from the original flow by those farther on.
You might be right, but I cannot see how that can be known.
The Gospels, however, are essentials upon which we do agree, as are the rest of the NT, most of the OT, the Apostle’s and the Nicene Creeds (except the Filioque and “God from God”, although the latter is merely reduplicative), and (at least among the more-traditional), the Chalcedonian Definition. There is quite a lot of agreement, and I would suggest that the unity which we can manage on such essentials is more valuable than a unity which (history suggests) we cannot manage.
And yet Protestantism continues. Oddly enough, the disunity frequently means splitting differences so fine that the majority of the laity care little for them, and move freely between denominations.
Further, individual denominations such as the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Lutherans, and the Anglicans are still around, five hundred years later. While we have changed, and are changing, claims that we are disappearing are decidedly premature.
A
Abu
Guest
False. Christ teaches through His Magisterium that the Church is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39], and this despite Her personally fallible members.
Opinions cannot substitute for doctrine. Christ’s establishment of His Church is clear from the Sacred Scriptures.
Mystophilus answers:
Because they are intelligent individuals with free will, and are therefore engineered to come up with their own ideas, including their own ideas about how one determines which doctrines are so essential: by the Bible alone, by Tradition, by reason, by one’s enculturated preconceptions, or by some combination of them all.
Ignores that the cause of disagreement has been stressed interminably with Mystophilus failing to understand.
Post #11: “Since the Church is founded by Christ as “an organization founded and united for a specific purpose” it is THE institution to teach, rule and sanctify established by God the Son.”
Post #13: “shows the reality of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, founding His Catholic Church, apart from which all other “churches” or sects are in error in varying degrees.”
Having built His Church on St Peter He promised the Holy Spirit’s guidance to “all truth” – with the Bible quote of 4 promises to St Peter alone and Sole authority.
Thus the incompetence and failure of “churches” (and people) to agree is, once again, precisely because they do not heed Christ through His Catholic Church.
S
SJacob7
Guest
As for your first point, Jesus was talking to the Jews. As you know they had an altar for sacrifices. There was no Christianity as we know it. Complete different religion. It would be interesting to know when Christians first started to use an altar?
Your second point. People are brought to Christ through the gospel. 2 Timothy 3:15 (RSV) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, his disciples went out and preached the gospel.
Please clarify your third point. I’m not sure what you are referencing?
Thanks!
SJ
G
guanophore
Guest
It has come to my attention that Abu might not even read the posts, and seems to have some standard lines that get used “apologetically”. I have read more that one in a thread that seems to be unrelated to the topic.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Your response only emphasizes what Catholics have repeatedly said about protestantism. The very fact that there are, at least three, interpretations or responses, as you call them, to the passage shows that the basic doctrine of protestantism that scripture is the final authority is a bunch of hocus pocus. It is as illusionary as a smoke and mirrors magic trick. The real ‘final authority’ in protestantism is the personal interpretation of the individual. For it is the interpretation of the individual that says what scripture says and means. That is why when three protestants disagree the result is one new denomination. Scripture has one and only one interpretation. In the OT God had prophets to declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” They did so with authority given to them by God. Thus the prophets interpreted with clarity God’s word to the OT church. If the OT is a foreshadowing, as protestants claim, of the New Testament then who in the New Testament has the authority to say, with clarity, “Thus sayeth the Lord…”? Obviously it isn’t scripture because, as you acknowledge, with at least three different interpretations there is no clarity. Rather it is the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is the New Testament authority to proclaim, “Thus sayeth the Lord…”.
E
ezeekl
Guest
At the Last Supper.
G
guanophore
Guest
Shortly after the resurrection of Christ, when the Divine Liturgy given by Christ at the last supper began to be celebrated. We see the Liturgy described by Justin Martryr.
Matt 23:19
For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
He talks about bread and wine being brought forward for consecration.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I agree completely.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
, art 39], and this despite Her personally fallible members.
Assertion is not demonstration, sorry.
That is clearly your opinion.
Sorry, but you still fail to grasp the most basic elements of what is going on here.
You are describing the fact of the disagreement there, not outlining its cause.
It is true that the other churches do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church, but it is not particularly relevant to this issue of causation, because it is also true that the other churches do not agree with the Orthodox Church, or with the Ethiopic Coptic Church, or with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Each of those separate alternatives individually causes disagreement.
To assume any one of those as the singular cause of the disagreement is the basic logical fallacy called a “false dilemma”.
Now, you might not think that the disagreement with any of those others is important, but that does not stop the disagreement with them being disagreement.
Further, none of this comes remotely close to challenging the validity of my comment above.
A
Abu
Guest
Since Christ established His Church and no other through His Magisterium, and He is God the Son, no other can assume to be a god and claim that that is false – God has proclaimed through His Magisterium that His Church is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].
Disagreement is due to false ideas about Christ and Catholicism, or to selfism – narcissism, egoism, self-worship.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
The very fact that there are, at least three, interpretations or responses, as you call them, to the passage shows that the basic doctrine of protestantism that scripture is the final authority is a bunch of hocus pocus. It is as illusionary as a smoke and mirrors magic trick. The real ‘final authority’ in protestantism is the personal interpretation of the individual.
“. . . Scripture has one and only one interpretation. In the OT God had prophets to declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” They did so with authority given to them by God. Thus the prophets interpreted with clarity God’s word to the OT church. If the OT is a foreshadowing, as protestants claim, of the New Testament then who in the New Testament has the authority to say, with clarity, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’? Obviously it isn’t scripture because, as you acknowledge, with at least three different interpretations there is no clarity. Rather it is the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is the New Testament authority to proclaim, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’.”
Originally Posted by ezeekl
The very fact that there are, at least three, interpretations or responses, as you call them, to the passage shows that the basic doctrine of protestantism that scripture is the final authority is a bunch of hocus pocus. It is as illusionary as a smoke and mirrors magic trick. The real ‘final authority’ in protestantism is the personal interpretation of the individual.
Do you also agree with the second part?
“. . . Scripture has one and only one interpretation. In the OT God had prophets to declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” They did so with authority given to them by God. Thus the prophets interpreted with clarity God’s word to the OT church. If the OT is a foreshadowing, as protestants claim, of the New Testament then who in the New Testament has the authority to say, with clarity, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’? Obviously it isn’t scripture because, as you acknowledge, with at least three different interpretations there is no clarity. Rather it is the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is the New Testament authority to proclaim, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’.”
G
guanophore
Guest
, art 39], and this despite Her personally fallible members.
Abu, any congregation can say this. They can get their leadership or members together and claim that Christ teaches through their ministerial leadership that their congregation is holy. Quoting from Catholic documents what the Church says about herself is not going to be very effective in this case. Of course the CC thinks and teaches this about herself.
So do the Mormons, the Seveth day Adventists, etc.
No Christian will disagree with that. The disagreement lies in the fact that the Catholic clergy have not always behaved in a manner that could convince everyone that they were holy.
On the contrary, Abu, Mystophilus’ disagreement with you is not rooted in a lack of understanding, but in your inability to make a convincing arguement. You are using Church documents as an authoritative source, one which has been rejected by Protestants for over 500 years! Whacking people over the head with your doctrinal assertions is not a pursuasive method.
No one disagrees with this. Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves to be valid continuations of the Apostolic faith.
This is your interpretation of the Scriptures. Others see it differently.
Then you sum it up by asserting that, if others don’t agree with your points of view, they are not listening to Jesus - a charge that was very succeffully made about the Pope and the Bishops at the time of the Reformation. The CC disqualified herself in the eyes of the Reformers. They sought to “hear Christ” through His Holy Word, hin the Scriptures instead, since what came forth from the lives, mouths, and documents of the corrupt were clearly a shame to Christ.
Z
zz912
Guest
- This makes no sense at all. You believe Christ gave out commands for how to live under the Old Covenant, while He was working very hard to establish the New? Sorry, that’s not correct at all. He was instructing them in how to live in the New Covenant, how things were changing, and how His instructions were a higher level in the NC. Additionally, why would the Gospel writers include, a couple decades after the institution of the New Covenant, the instructions Jesus gave for living under the OC? The Gospels were limited in space, and they had to be very careful what they included and what they did not include. They didn’t have space to write about His instructions about the OC.
Heb 13:9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.
- You missed my reference. My apologies. I was discussing the teaching Jesus gave about when a brother has wronged you. If he does not listen to you, or listen to you and another, then you are to bring him to the Church. You can’t do this if it is not an institution.
- There are a couple of instances where heretics and apostates are denied communion with the Church, or instructions are left on what to do with those who are apostate, including denying them communion and keeping them out of the Church. Again, how is this done if the Church is not an institution.
A
Abu
Guest
That sums up the fatal reason – those who revolted against the Apostolic faith and teaching from Christ in His Church – chose selfism – narcissism, egoism, self-worship.
Assuming their own opinions, from the Sacred Scriptures guaranteed to be the Word of God by His Catholic Church, and blindly stumbling like the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah who was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” (Acts 8:30-31), they have stumbled into embracing the evils of divorce and remarriage after a valid marriage, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, women “priests” and women “bishops”, and no authoritative teaching, except virtually anything goes.
With no valid priests, there is no valid Sacrifice of the Mass, and no sacraments except baptism.
That sums up the DEFORMATION that was hatched…
G
guanophore
Guest
I guess that I will just habe to give you up for lost in your prejudiced and bigoted viewpoint. It is clear that you are not educated in the historical events of the Reformation, ,nor are you willing to become educated, but prefer to persist in ignorance and judgmentalism.
However,for those reading this thread, if you have not read the documents of the Reformation, all of those who opposted the selfism, narcissism, egotism and self-worship of the Reformation era clerics yearned for a more pure faith, and turned away from the corruption of the leadership to the Holy Scriptures, where they believed they would find a return to purity.
The root of “protest” comes from the Latin “protestare” - to stand up for, or up against something. The Reformers sought to stand up against corruption and for purity of faith (one of the reasons their descendants named themselves puritans).
With no valid priests, there is no valid Sacrifice of the Mass, and no sacraments except baptism.
For you, Abu, I woudl recommend a reading of the Catechism on how the Church teaches you on her attitude toward Protestants. (hint: you are not following it_)
M
Mystophilus
Guest
No. Language is not so simple, or so perfect, as to admit of only one interpretation. This is why lawyers get paid so much, and why people have been arguing over the interpretation of Homer for 2300 years.
Typology is neither universal among nor exclusive to Protestants.
The difficulty is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very easy to claim, but very hard to prove.
The Catholic argument is that the Tradition and the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to understand the Scriptures. The Orthodox argument is the same, although they understand the Scriptures differently (q.v. Original Sin versus Ancestral Sin). A widespread Protestant argument is that the Tradition actually blinds the older churches to the true meaning of the Scriptures, by imposing preconceptions on the readings.
Meanwhile, others of us say, “We’re probably all wrong.”
- Status