Thank you for clarifying that. I think a few of us were confused about what you were saying – at least I was.
I’d say that Protestants are attacked and belittled on Catholic forums for pretty much the same reasons that Catholics are attacked and belittled on Protestant forums.
Not to get into a big semantics thing, but I’m curious: would you describe yourself as an “ultra-montanist”?No. I have not expressed myself very clearly.
The steps are these:
St. Peter had a vision in which God showed him that all foods are clean.
This was followed by his meeting with Cornelius, where he had the experience of seeing certain Gentiles, including Cornelius, being filled with the Holy Spirit and manifesting healings, tongues, etc.
St. Peter immediately understands the meaning of the vision that God had given to him, so he calls for the Gentiles to be baptized.
Upon hearing that Gentiles are being baptized, the rest of the Apostles call for the Gentiles to take up the kosher law and to be circumcised. The Gentiles refuse to do this.
St. Peter calls a Council in Jerusalem, where the matter is discussed at length. St. Peter, at the end of this meeting, makes an infallible decree - one that is not based in any existing tradition up to that moment in time, and is certainly not found anywhere in the Scriptures available to them (keeping in mind that at this point, not one word of the New Testament has yet been written down) - rather, he is drawing on the oral teachings of Christ, which are not altogether clear (we notice that the Evangelist has to explain to us, when Jesus makes that enigmatic statement about what goes into the mouth and what comes out of the mouth - he explains to us, “Here we see that Jesus made all foods clean,” - this did not become clear to the Apostles until, in fact, the Council at Jerusalem (and perhaps not even then - perhaps it was even later than that, that they finally made the connection).
St. Peter at this point makes an infallible decree that is based on absolutely nothing except his own authority, that the Gentiles will not be required to be circumcised, that they are to hear the Liturgy of the Word in the synagogues, and that they can eat or drink whatever they want as long as they don’t consume blood. Furthermore, that it is permitted for the Jews to partake of suppers with the Gentiles and to eat whatever they eat. This decree is promulgated by letter to all of the churches.
At some point along the way, St. Peter, for fear of certain Jews, sets himself apart from the Gentiles, rather than (as he himself had decreed) sitting down to supper with them and eating whatever they eat.
St. Paul (who as you recall was a Pharisee, and a real stickler for following God’s rules), instead of saying “Whew, he has finally come to his senses and is going by what the Bible tells us to do,” he gets angry with St. Peter and rebukes him for breaking - HUH? - God’s law. Wha … ?
Okay, so how did eating with the Gentiles go from being against God’s law, to being what the godly are supposed to do?
By the very decree of St. Peter. “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven. What you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.” That’s what Jesus said to Peter, in the hearing of all of the other Apostles.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter loosed the restriction on eating with Gentiles, and so God loosed the restriction in Heaven. This disciplinary rule was changed.
How?
By the infallible decree of St. Peter, which was promulgated by letter to the whole Church on earth.
(And then, because he is Simon, as well as Peter, he promptly broke the law, and got rebuked by the Pharisee for breaking it, because the Pharisee knew, didn’t he, how God makes His will known on the earth - it is by means of the Petrine office.)
Indeed, as noted above.
It’s not.
That is certainly generous of you, however outside of the more traditional Protestant denominations (ie Lutheranism and Anglicanism) I don’t think that your view is commonly held. Mary is indeed a big issue.
I am a Protestant (evangelical and fundamentalist). I can’t speak for your father in law. I do take issue with the significance Catholics give Mary (I know veneration and worship are different–I’m still not comfortable with the place she occupies for many Catholics). Hence, I agree beliefs surrounding Mary are important, however it doesn’t matter to me whether she was a perpetual virgin or not. To me, that’s really a non-essential. Either way, she was part of God’s perfect plan whether I understand her role completely or not.That is certainly generous of you, however outside of the more traditional Protestant denominations (ie Lutheranism and Anglicanism) I don’t think that your view is commonly held. Mary is indeed a big issue.
Case in point; my father in law denies the Trinity but says that it is a “non-essential” to Christianity while my wife and I’s beliefs on Mary are not "non-essential. Translation: getting the nature of God correct is less important than getting Mary ‘correct’.
God bless you
So is my father-in-law
You take “issue” with our beliefs on Mary and believe our differences are important yet it doesn’t matter to you and to you it is all a “non-essential”? I don’t think I understand? Why do you take issue with something that is a “non-essential” to you?
I don’t know what that word means - sorry!
No need to apologize.I don’t know what that word means - sorry!
From the point of view of those around him. Peter himself knew that his authority came from Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-19) and he also knew that he had been given a vision from God, and confirmation of the vision with signs and wonders. So, he knew that he had the authority from God to make the decision that he made.
j) “Other” - Ignorance of Christ keeps us apart. If we all knew Christ to the fullest extent He called us to know Him, we would all be one in Him. That’s all I have to say about this issue.Is it,
a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?
Curiously,
Mick
I want to make a distinction between:So is my father-in-law
You take “issue” with our beliefs on Mary and believe our differences are important yet it doesn’t matter to you and to you it is all a “non-essential”? I don’t think I understand? Why do you take issue with something that is a “non-essential” to you?
Either way, I was trying to point out that while you are holding to a very generous view of Catholic’s beliefs on Mary, I don’t believe it is a common view. Especially amongst those who consider themselves fundamentalists.
God bless you
Well said. I am a Protestant Christian-new to the Forum. I have been enjoying a very lively discussion on the Trinity. I think the more we talk, discuss, and ask question regarding the differences and more importantly the beliefs we share, the closer we will come to mutual respect and understanding.
It should be non-essential for all of us.
Perhaps. But the Council of Trent (which we Catholics regard as an ecumenical council) did anthematize anyone who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity. Perhaps it shouldn’t have done so, but that doesn’t nullify the anthema.
If brothers and sisters of Jesus existed, their descendants would have a unique claim to the See of Peter, since they would be the natural heirs of Christ to the Church.
Well … can’t exactly say that’s the best argument I’ve heard.
The teachings about Mary are something one should study before one states that they do not matter. How can one say teachings don’t matter if one doesn’t even know what they are?
