The Protestant Meltdown

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneTrueCathApos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You might want to read Gottle’s response somewhere around pages 4-6 or so. He gives a very interesting response that is reasoned and I think is essentially what many Protestants would argue. Coming from a RC, I find it refreshing that at least one person stops pretending not to understand. I think most people here are intelligent, and this has been explained again and again, yet it is re-raised again and again.
I don’t need to read Gottle’s response. I have the RCC to teach me and the Pope. The Pope has Apostolic succession to teach me. Thats enough for me!😃 The Pope has the Power of the Holy Spirt to teach me. Can’t get no better than that!
 
I don’t need to read Gottle’s response. I have the RCC to teach me and the Pope. The Pope has Apostolic succession to teach me. Thats enough for me!😃 The Pope has the Power of the Holy Spirt to teach me. Can’t get no better than that!
They teach you what others with a different perspective actually think?
 
They teach you what others with a different perspective actually think?
I will stick with what the bible tells me, to stick with tradition and early Fathers of the Church. That would be the Pope. I am quite contented with my faith. The main reason is they have the fullness of the truth, and it never changes. You can go to any RC in the country and it will be the same truth and teachings. In the protestant faith you never get the same answer. That would drive me crazy.
 
I will stick with what the bible tells me, to stick with tradition and early Fathers of the Church. That would be the Pope. I am quite contented with my faith. The main reason is they have the fullness of the truth, and it never changes. You can go to any RC in the country and it will be the same truth and teachings. In the protestant faith you never get the same answer. That would drive me crazy.
And why does the Bible say people become Muslims? Why are there Jews? Why did they not accept Peter as their leader?
 
And why does the Bible say people become Muslims? Why are there Jews? Why did they not accept Peter as their leader?
Because they don’t accept the teaching’s of the Church. Jesus built the Church on Peter. The scripture is pretty clear. Why don’t people accept Jesus Christ? By the way where does the bible say people become Muslims? A little confused there. And large part of the Catholic faith is based on the Jewish Faith. The O.T. is part of our faith. But Jesus Christ told us HE is the way. Jesus Christ was rejected by the jews, but not all many many accepted him. Look at the Apostles.
 
Because they don’t accept the teaching’s of the Church. Jesus built the Church on Peter. The scripture is pretty clear. Why don’t people accept Jesus Christ? By the way where does the bible say people become Muslims? A little confused there. And large part of the Catholic faith is based on the Jewish Faith. The O.T. is part of our faith. But Jesus Christ told us HE is the way. Jesus Christ was rejected by the jews, but not all many many accepted him. Look at the Apostles.
That’s what I am asking about Muslims, yet they exist. And have taken the same writings and declared them corrupted. I guess the crux is are you taking a step of faith in believing that God supernaturally gave the Pope the power of perfection in explaining why someone is not Catholic. And that the reason he gives is thus correct in everyway even if the Protestant, Muslim, Jew or other tells you differently?
 
That’s what I am asking about Muslims, yet they exist. And have taken the same writings and declared them corrupted. I guess the crux is are you taking a step of faith in believing that God supernaturally gave the Pope the power of perfection in explaining why someone is not Catholic. And that the reason he gives is thus correct in everyway even if the Protestant, Muslim, Jew or other tells you differently?
Oh ok, then yes I could say yes my love for the Lord and my Church is pure faith. But that faith came from Grace, that was a gift from God. But I don’t recall the Pope explaining why someone is not Catholic? Could you refer me to that teaching. I mean the only reason I could say that someone isn’t Catholic is they don’t accept the teachings of the Church. But why they don’t accept them, that’s an answer I don’t believe I ever heard.
 
What does this have to do with Luther’s failure to reform the church Christ established?

Everything - you said:​

Originally Posted by OneTrueCathApos forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
No of course not. Luther failed to reform the true church Jesus established. He failed, and if he was doing God’s work, he wouldn’t of failed because God doesn’t fail.

Humanly speaking, & to all appearances, Jesus was a failure, so, by your reasoning, his mission was no more “of God” than (from your POV) Luther’s was. Your own line of reasoning condemns Jesus as well as Luther.​

I hope that clears things up.
 
Matthew 18:15
1 Tim 3:15
Ephes 3:10
Acts 2:47
1 Cor 14:12
The bible also says to the bishops that the Holy spirit has appointed rule the church of God Acts 20:28
Acts 20:28
Ephes 5:24
etc…
Since all these books and much ore mentions the church, the church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written.
The bible is
Oral Tradition written down
There was no Sola Scripture back then

You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about Sola Scriptura; but about the interpretation of Matthew 16.18 & the verses round about. The ones you mention are not part of that literary unit, so it is not appropriate to include them in an interpretation of that unit. For a Matthean text, the only theology that matters is Matthew’s: not that of Paul or John or Luke, not that of later Christian texts or assemblies, & certainly not the Church today’s, nor yours nor mine. The only theology, & method of writing, that is of immediate importance for discovering the meaning of a passage in Matthew’s gospel, is the theology, & method of writing, of that Evangelist. And as the book comes from a form of Christianity which is full of Jewish elements & themes which were “in the air” during the first century AD in Palestine, it is appropriate as a method of study to read the Evangelist’s text in the light of those elements & themes. It is not at all appropriate to require the text of Matthew to accommodate itself to our ideas of it; that is eisegesis, not exegesis 😦 If we are at liberty to make the text mean only what we want it to mean, why bother reading it in the first place ?​

 

Everything - you said:​

Humanly speaking, & to all appearances, Jesus was a failure, so, by your reasoning, his mission was no more “of God” than (from your POV) Luther’s was. Your own line of reasoning condemns Jesus as well as Luther.​

I hope that clears things up.
Gottle who ever said Jesus was only human. Is that not the point. You are comparing Jesus to luther. You can’t. Luther was human in every way. Jesus was God he was human and divine. Jesus died on the cross, and took away death. Jesus came back, Jesus fulfilled scripture. Do you not see, the devil got to luther, he never got to Jesus.

Look at the life Luther lived, look at the life Jesus lived, I see nothing at all the same. Complete opposite really. One lived in pure sin, the other totally sinless. I can see your point on alot of views, but not on this one at all.

Also when did luther give sight to the blind, cure the sick. Bring back someone from death. Sorry again, can’t see your point.
 

Everything - you said:​

Humanly speaking, & to all appearances, Jesus was a failure, so, by your reasoning, his mission was no more “of God” than (from your POV) Luther’s was. Your own line of reasoning condemns Jesus as well as Luther.​

I hope that clears things up.
But Jesus was not a failure and to even say such a thing is a terrible blasphemy.
 
Can’t say as I ever heard that definition before. I thought Peter meant rock, but you say it means papa and that means pope? Please show me the etimology. I’d love to see that.
The reason Peter is translated to rock and Father, (Papa) is quite simple. Go to the O.T. Abraham in hebrew is exhaulted Father. Now go to the word Abraham it also means rock. Go to Isaiah 51:1-2. (you will see rock). Now Jesus changed Abram to Abraham he changed Simon to Peter, they mean the same rock. Rock means Father, in greek Papa means Father. And from latin Papa is Pope.

That is a very interesting explanation. May I ask where you come by it?
 
I don’t need to read Gottle’s response. I have the RCC to teach me and the Pope. The Pope has Apostolic succession to teach me. Thats enough for me!😃 The Pope has the Power of the Holy Spirt to teach me. Can’t get no better than that!
No I suppose if you are ready to let someone else do your thinking and accept what they tell you. I’m sure you don’t do the same in regards other things in life. At least lets hope not. The world would be a sorry place should everyone be so intellectually incurious. So exactly why do you think God gave you such a magnificent mind? Surely you don’t need all that merely to accept what the Magisterium and Pope deliver you.
 
When gottle has the gift of the Holy Spirit we can talk!😃
HOw unspeakably uncharitable of you rinnie. You think that God has now given you power to discern who is guided by the HS? The arrogance of that takes my breath away. I didn’t ask you to go to a library, I merely asked you to page back a couple of pages. If you are that incurious about truth, then so be it.
 
The reason Peter is translated to rock and Father, (Papa) is quite simple. Go to the O.T. Abraham in hebrew is exhaulted Father. Now go to the word Abraham it also means rock. Go to Isaiah 51:1-2. (you will see rock). Now Jesus changed Abram to Abraham he changed Simon to Peter, they mean the same rock. Rock means Father, in greek Papa means Father. And from latin Papa is Pope.
That is a very interesting explanation. May I ask where you come by it?

Easy first go to the beginning and look up how God changed abram to Abrahan. Then look up what Abraham means. Go to that scripure I told you, it will show you follow the Rock (Father Abraham). Then like I said Look up what Peter means Rock which also means Father. Remember Jesus also called himself the Rock which he is also our True Father. The Pope and Abraham are our adopted Fathers here on earth. Jesus, Abraham, Peter all called the Rock. You have to do alot of searching and it is alot of trouble, but its worth it. You will find that I am telling you the truth.😃
 
HOw unspeakably uncharitable of you rinnie. You think that God has now given you power to discern who is guided by the HS? The arrogance of that takes my breath away. I didn’t ask you to go to a library, I merely asked you to page back a couple of pages. If you are that incurious about truth, then so be it.
If you think I said this to be uncharitable please forgive me. I did not mean to sound that way. What I mean is the Pope has the gift of the Holy Spirit through Holy Orders. That is how he has the gift of the HS. That is why I said what I said. God has given me no power, I know that. I do not have the gift of the HS to define scripture. I admit that. That is why I go by the teaching’s of the Church. I am just obeying God spring meadow. It that makes me arrogant Could you please explain to me why? Where does the bible say that we do not have to go by the teachings of our early Fathers, and Go by our own teaching’s. The bible says not to do that. Could you show me where it says in the bible that we have the Gift of the Holy Spirit to define scripture and teach the faith on what we feel it says? Or does it say do not be led astray by strange teachings?
 
No I suppose if you are ready to let someone else do your thinking and accept what they tell you. I’m sure you don’t do the same in regards other things in life. At least lets hope not. The world would be a sorry place should everyone be so intellectually incurious. So exactly why do you think God gave you such a magnificent mind? Surely you don’t need all that merely to accept what the Magisterium and Pope deliver you.
If I was to let others do my thinking for me I would be all comfused. How would I know who to believe. I can read scripture today and it mean one thing, read it tommorow and it mean another. But how can I really know what that scripture means unless I wrote it.

Like I explained before. The Church was who actually WROTE the bible, they knew what they were saying. They are the only ones who know what they meant. I do not know what they meant. That is why we have the Pope he has teachings and understanding passed down frow word of mouth, and explained to him from true apostolic succession. When I said that the Church wrote the bible I did not mean it was not inspired by God. But God did not write the bible. The Church wrote it, and the church understands what it wrote. There is alot of words that we can take out of context. The Church can’t because it knows what it wrote, and what the message it was trying to relate to us. And not everything is wrote down, as you well know, so without the other writings and teachings of the Church its impossible to understand what is being said. Jesus did not tell his apostles to go out and write this down. He said to go and spread the word by mouth.
 
If you think I said this to be uncharitable please forgive me. I did not mean to sound that way. What I mean is the Pope has the gift of the Holy Spirit through Holy Orders. That is how he has the gift of the HS. That is why I said what I said. God has given me no power, I know that. I do not have the gift of the HS to define scripture. I admit that. That is why I go by the teaching’s of the Church. I am just obeying God spring meadow. It that makes me arrogant Could you please explain to me why? Where does the bible say that we do not have to go by the teachings of our early Fathers, and Go by our own teaching’s. The bible says not to do that. Could you show me where it says in the bible that we have the Gift of the Holy Spirit to define scripture and teach the faith on what we feel it says? Or does it say do not be led astray by strange teachings?
I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion, but I surely have never heard what you relate. Everyone is gifted with the HS, at least those who are Christians, although may would argue that God inhabits all his creation in Spirit.

You are claiming I think that the Pope alone by some special gift has the gift to discern scripture? This if it were true would mean there would be no point in any Catholic theologians or biblical experts, and I can assure you there are thousands. Moreover, there would be no need of a Magisterium either, or tradition. Each pope could simply pontificate on what scripture means.

I find no support in scripture for such a thing. The bible is not a thing, it is a collection of writings by various people who we believe were gifted with inspiration to speak the truth as they understood it. Paul certainly says that people all have various gifts, some of them teaching, some preaching, etc.

There is no prohibition against interpreting the bible. In fact that is exactly what you do. You interpret what you read from the church’s teaching and speak what you THINK it means. You may well be wrong, in fact more often you are, as we all would be. No one could learn enough to properly speak for any church’s teaching as final word on the subject.

I don’t see how you are obeying God. You are making a host of assumptions to do so. I suspect the verses you might be referring to, but of course they can be turned back upon you as easily as you can turn them against anyone else. YOur faith is like a house of cards, each carefully built upon the next, higher and higher. That is the beauty and I suspect the downfall of Catholicism. It depends on the first premise to be true, and in the end, it is but a belief. On that one thing, all others rest.

As Gottle and tons of others have suggested, you may believe that “upon this rock…etc” means that Christ started the RCC and gave it special help to never err. But the language is quite a bit different that that even you would concede. It has been the Churchs’ “interpretation” that it means that. Then and only then, can you build upon that that you have no right to interpret, etc.

In the end, everything is based on one factor that admittedly is the 'interpretation" of one church. So there is no proof at all. To fall back again upon “Upon this rock” is but to bring the argument full circle and to try to prove the thing by the very thing itself. It is illogical.
 
If I was to let others do my thinking for me I would be all comfused. How would I know who to believe. I can read scripture today and it mean one thing, read it tommorow and it mean another. But how can I really know what that scripture means unless I wrote it.
That is precisely what you do. You let a group in a institution define scripture for you. The fact that pastorally, scripture can mean different things at different times, is its genius, and the very reason why some of us believe it to be inspired. That has nothing to do with the actual meaning. That is something that we uncover bit by bit over time. It is the work of well educated specialists. The Vatican employs a goodly number of them itself. It often doesn’t like what they produce.
Like I explained before. The Church was who actually WROTE the bible, they knew what they were saying. They are the only ones who know what they meant. I do not know what they meant. That is why we have the Pope he has teachings and understanding passed down frow word of mouth, and explained to him from true apostolic succession. When I said that the Church wrote the bible I did not mean it was not inspired by God. But God did not write the bible. The Church wrote it, and the church understands what it wrote. There is alot of words that we can take out of context. The Church can’t because it knows what it wrote, and what the message it was trying to relate to us. And not everything is wrote down, as you well know, so without the other writings and teachings of the Church its impossible to understand what is being said. Jesus did not tell his apostles to go out and write this down. He said to go and spread the word by mouth.
The RCC did not write the bible. It certainly didn’t write the OT, and there are few who know who in fact wrote any of it. The NT was written by various people, many of them unknown. They were believers or followers in “The Way”. They attempted to in some cases right down 1. eye witness events they themselves saw, and/or 2. the recollections of what eye witnesses saw, and/or 3. The collected sayings and oral tradition that was being taught locally by various believers.

Not everyone taught or believed the same things, as Paul’s letters so clearly attest. Each “church” existing usually in homes of the believers, was an island to itself. There was not a lot of consistency in what was taught, and Paul did his best to correct obvious errors. These writings were passed around, copied, and recopied for centuries.

Finally Constantine ordered that the church convene and settle on a canon. The reason was that there were so many writings out there, they were inconsistent, and there were lots of different things being taught. A small percentage of the entire number of bishops attended and discussed and argued about it. Some writings were included, others, excluded, some like Hebrews barely passed into the canon.

The church is no better position to understand it than anyone else who has studied these things. As I said, if that were the case, and it was all determined, then there would not be people at work in the Vatican doing this right now.

The Church came into formal existence long long after the writings were done, in fact, there were nothing but copies of copies of copies. If what you say is true, then the “Church” would no doubt have the originals of its “own” writings.

I know this is impossible for you to accept, since it means that you can’t live with certainty. But there is nothing certain in life, and those who try to create certainty about God and salvation are doomed to failure. It is faith, not proof, and God means for it to be faith. What you wish to do is what every personality of a fundamentalist inclination wants to do, create a religion with rules and “truth” such that there is nothing left to do but obey as best you can, and the end is assured. Security is a illusion. There is no such thing. There is only faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top