The Protestant invisible church

[steido01]

We each draw a Bible and the Catholic wins because ours has more books than yours

Luther’s bible actually had 74 books, so Lutherans like me actually have one more book than the current Roman Catholic bible! BTW, nice new picture, Jose.

But that’s neither here nor there, since my question was about about a hypothetical dispute between a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal…

The answer is that each would seek the counsel of his own pastor/priest. The original question, “So what happens if there is a dispute between a Lutheran and a Pentecostal?” is therefore equally as frivolous. Neither would acknowledge the teaching authority of the other’s church body to also apply to their own if they didn’t belong to that communion. It’s silly to lump everything non-Roman Catholic into some monolithic, mystical, capital-P, “Protestant Church.”

It is discussed in the church and the church will look at it under the protection of the Holy Spirit through the lens of the apostolic faith.

The church has the historical and biblical pedigree to determine this and to settle dispute between any Christian.

Naturally, as a Roman Catholic, you would (and should!) hold your communion to be the authority on matters concerning you. A Pentecostal (or a Lutheran, or an Anglican, or an Orthodox) would, naturally, disagree. You believe your leader to be infallible; no other communion agrees with Rome on this issue.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Luther’s bible actually had 74 books, so Lutherans like me actually have one more book than the current Roman Catholic bible! BTW, nice new picture, Jose.

But that’s neither here nor there, since my question was about about a hypothetical dispute between a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal…

The answer is that each would seek the counsel of his own pastor/priest. The original question, “So what happens if there is a dispute between a Lutheran and a Pentecostal?” is therefore equally as frivolous. Neither would acknowledge the teaching authority of the other’s church body to also apply to their own if they didn’t belong to that communion. It’s silly to lump everything non-Roman Catholic into some monolithic, mystical, capital-P, “Protestant Church.”

Naturally, as a Roman Catholic, you would (and should!) hold your communion to be the authority on matters concerning you. A Pentecostal (or a Lutheran, or an Anglican, or an Orthodox) would, naturally, disagree. You believe your leader to be infallible; no other communion agrees with Rome on this issue.

Yes every Protestant does have an infallible authority.

The individuals interpretation of scripture.

This is both unbiblical and impractical

I hold all bishops with an apostolic lineage to have authority. This includes orthodox and coptics among others.

 

[steido01]

Yes every Protestant does have an infallible authority.

The individuals interpretation of scripture.

I can’t speak for protestants, but Lutherans acknowledge the teaching authority of our church, which stems from Scripture and is spoken of quite clearly in our Confessions (which we consider to be a right reflection of Scripture).

This is both unbiblical and impractical

Agreed; those that follow their individual interpretation of Scripture are taking up a non-biblical and foolish practice.

I hold all bishops with an apostolic lineage to have authority. This includes orthodox and coptics among others.

Does your communion also believe this? On a related note, what has your communion historically taught about presbyter ordination?

 

[adf417]

But that’s neither here nor there, since my question was about about a hypothetical dispute between a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal.

Its is a shame it has to be hypothetical. I think the original question was honestly meant to truly resolve disputes so we can fulfill John 17.

Peace!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Luther’s bible actually had 74 books, so Lutherans like me actually have one more book than the current Roman Catholic bible! BTW, nice new picture, Jose.

Those were old German Lutherans - you guys are new Lutherans with a truncated one - just giving you a hard time .

Thanks!

But that’s neither here nor there, since my question was about about a hypothetical dispute between a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal…

Not necessarily my friend.

We can see from the early days of the Reformation all the divisions arising from its beginnings. Luther vs Zwingli vs Calvin - See Bucer’s attempts to reconcile this division - so much that I believe he was able to get Luther and Zwingli to agree on 13 or 14 points - and the Eucharist being the one disagreement ultimately - the greatest heresy (Zwingly camp) of the time if you ask me…

What we have seen since the birth of Protestantism is more divisions. I don’t even know how many different denominations there are now (I don’t want to be ignorant and claim whatever number some people like to throw around). But the bottom line is that each person (Using a wide brush here, not intentionally but to pin down each denominational tendency is a daunting task) believes their individual interpretation of Scriptures is correct.

That doesn’t mean that some Catholics don’t want to adhere to the Church’s teaching. But for the vast majority, the Catholic Church is united in the Faith around the whole world. Yes, we have 23 different rites but they are all under the See of Rome. They are all in communion with Rome because they agree in those things that are part of the deposit of the Faith. Rogue Priests and Bishops are inevitable - they do not represent the Church as a Whole. And we lay people, well we are just as varied as anyone - but ultimately we assent obedience to the Church.

You have to admit that Protestantism is bordering on Anarchy when it comes to religious discipline. I was one for about 10 years. Church hoping to find one that fitted my theology. While it is similar in finding a Catholic Church that I like - the underlying reason is not theological but parishional.

Oh and a last note - if you draw the Bibel against our Bible, we will then draw the keys!

House wins!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We go too long without having Holy Communion.

Yes; 2000 years is far too long
(Sorry, can’t help myself!)

I do have options. I could church shop. But that’s not biblical. It’s not about me. It’s about being where God wants me to be.

YES! He wants us all to be unified in the ONE Church that He started! (John 17:17-23).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No. There is no similarity at all. The Church Fathers did not write Scripture.

How do you know that?
Many thought Pope St. Clement’s letters, for example, were inspired and should be included in the canon.

 

[ltwin]

How do you know that?
Many thought Pope St. Clement’s letters, for example, were inspired and should be included in the canon.

Yes, and many doubted the canonical authority of the Book of Revelations.

 

[adf417]

Yes, and many doubted the canonical authority of the Book of Revelations.

Good thing we had an authority to clear that up!

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can’t speak for protestants, but Lutherans acknowledge the teaching authority of our church, which stems from Scripture and is spoken of quite clearly in our Confessions (which we consider to be a right reflection of Scripture).

Agreed; those that follow their individual interpretation of Scripture are taking up a non-biblical and foolish practice.

Does your communion also believe this? On a related note, what has your communion historically taught about presbyter ordination?

Yes I believe the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of all orthodox and Coptic bishops. They are separated under canon law due to schism but their orders are valid. Their Eucharists are valid and their ability to manage their regional area should be relatively unhindered.

Even in the Roman Rite you will have individual clergy go off the rails , that is why the Holy Spirit protects the church as a whole and why having a final arbiter is an essential.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, and many doubted the canonical authority of the Book of Revelations.

Exactly my point! It took the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, protected under the charism of infallibility, to determine the makeup of the canon.

So, how do YOU know what the Bible consists of?

And, if you depend on the Church, when did the Church lose that charism? And how do you know it did?

 

[Peter_J]

I love reading explanations like this because all I can think of is:

1 corin 1: 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

No problem. However, we Catholics believe that doctrinal agreement is a requirement for sharing the Eucharist. (And we aren’t the only ones who think that way: the Orthodox, the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and many other conservative Christians think that way as well.

 

[dronald]

Two Catholics in the year 1200 disagree on baptism. So they go to the church to settle it.

Most council and papal decisions are given due to some sort of conflict where the church steps In and declares what is the truth.

Two Priests disagree on whether or not burning heretics is the will of the Spirit, so they ask Pope Leo X.

What would Leo say? What would our current Pope Francis say?

But in principle, in Protestantism, he COULD do just that.

The point is if there is a doctrinal disagreement, there is a possible way to settle the issue that is protected and ratified in Heaven and AUTHORITATIVE. That is the whole point of the thread and the “visible” vrs. the “invisible” Church concepts.

The point ISN”T: “Can a guy or a priest get it wrong?”

The Pope has this authoritative Charism as outlined in Matthew 16 and it is PROTECTED by God.

And my response is that the leaders of your Church have an easier time abusing such power when they have no one to keep them in line. Let’s face it, the CC could not do some of the things they did even 500 years ago because people would switch Churches, and rightly so.

No problem. However, we Catholics believe that doctrinal agreement is a requirement for sharing the Eucharist. (And we aren’t the only ones who think that way: the Orthodox, the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and many other conservative Christians think that way as well.

And yet they do not all share with each other because of this, that and the other thing. We have many small differences (I’ll point out the irony here of Romans 14, food and how Catholics and Orthodox differ over what type of food) for whatever reason each Church can’t say that we can all be one in Jesus Christ if we are seeking Him with an open heart and a clear conscience. Instead the Orthodox say that Catholics are separated brethren, the Catholics say that of Lutherans, the Lutherans of Anglicans, all who differ over the most mundane things.

I have never stated that Catholics aren’t in my Church because my Church is Christ’s Church and so is yours. I know this sounds crazy to a Catholic but we really all are one, we just don’t agree on every little thing.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Two Priests disagree on whether or not burning heretics is the will of the Spirit, so they ask Pope Leo X.

What would Leo say? What would our current Pope Francis say?

Don’t know you’ll have to ask someday.

The church had doctrinally said the death penalty can be justified. So it would have to be considered in the time and place.

That said it was not the church but the secular authorities who instituted capital punishment for serious unrepentant heretics.

It was a very different time.

Read this! You’ll enjoy it I’m sure!

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236

 

[Novocastrian]

That said it was not the church but the secular authorities who instituted capital punishment for serious unrepentant heretics.

Did the Church condone it or protest against it?

 

[Novocastrian]

I hold all bishops with an apostolic lineage to have authority. This includes orthodox and coptics among others.

So they have authority to both teach the filioque and condemn it?

Come on Jon, you can’t have your cake and eat it!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Two Priests disagree on whether or not burning heretics is the will of the Spirit, so they ask Pope Leo X.

What would Leo say? What would our current Pope Francis say?

What would Calvin say? What would Luther say?

Jon S had a good answer, so I won’t add any more to this.

I have never stated that Catholics aren’t in my Church because my Church is Christ’s Church and so is yours. I know this sounds crazy to a Catholic but we really all are one, we just don’t agree on every little thing.

Catholics would agree! It’s just that you and your “church” are not invested with Christ’s Authority, as is the Catholic Church. You are a splinter group off of the OHCA Church that Jesus founded, connected with it and joined insofar as you are following the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and yet disjoined where you disagree with the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So they have authority to both teach the filioque and condemn it?

Come on Jon, you can’t have your cake and eat it!

Those with Apostolic lineage have limited authority. They have authority so long as they are in communion with the office of St. Peter.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Did the Church condone it or protest against it?

At times yes, at other times no.

Should they have? Always?

How about when the self-pronounced “head” of the Church of England persecuted the Church?

 

[ltwin]

Exactly my point! It took the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, protected under the charism of infallibility, to determine the makeup of the canon.

So, how do YOU know what the Bible consists of?

And, if you depend on the Church, when did the Church lose that charism? And how do you know it did?

I don’t deny that it was the “church” that used discernment to recognize that books were canonical. Where we disagree, I suspect, is on ecclesiology and the ways that the “church” came to make these determinations.