What percentage of Protestant theology is based on the Bible?

[guanophore]

Or when we talk about Catholics that ordain women.

Well, they have become Protestants without realizing it. They have departed from the Apostolic faith, and broken off from the Apostolic succession.

The established Anglican leadership allows for women priests.

John Paul the Second dedicated a whole ecclesiastical letter to this called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, with the express purpose of ending such foolishness.

Rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff!

The polemical purposes are probably part of the equation, too. But that’s okay. If I wanted to convince someone not to be Catholic, this style of "dialogue " would probably work.

In that case, I am relieved that your decisions have not been founded on your experiences here at CAF!

Further clarified, the primary attachment most folks have to their faith is emotional, so logical arguments aren’t likely to sway them because they don’t break the specific “glue” that binds them to that faith anyway.

I think you will find this is not the case with JonNC, if you take the time to know. Human beings experience emotions, and our emotions are part of our faith experience. For some, they are the basis of it, so like the seed that sprouts and quickly withers, they will leave when their emotions change. One may have strong emotions about their faith (I sure do), yet, they are not the basis or root of that faith. I think JonNC has endured much suffering for his faith, prayer, reasoning, and hard choices. A person who has an emotional foundation can’t do these things.

So apologetics and polemics probably aren’t going to convince you of anything

I don’t know as one could go so far as to say this. We have all learned a great deal about one another’s faith here on CAF, even if certain persons have not be “converted” to coming into unity with the Pope.

That’s allowed now at CAF,

I liked the old forum rules better. there was a higher expectation of respect, less insulting behavior on all sides.

 

[Vonsalza]

Valid points made!

I’d like to state that I’m a big believer in separating the man from his argument; as Aristotle correctly required. As such, the attacks I levy are attacks against ideas (99% of the time, so mea culpa for the balance). Now, I’m aware that a lot of folks can’t do this and that does create a problem to which there is no “middle-ground” solution. After all, you can’t clearly communicate “your idea is a bad one” to a guy and expect everyone to still be smiling and vigorously nodding at one another throughout the exchange.

To the thread- @JonNC has a problem with the word “Protestant”. He doesn’t like the fact that it’s nearly universally defined in terms that mention the Catholicism from which it factually, historically developed. And there’s a rational explanation for this. And while that’s probably for another thread, In shortest terms, the circumstances of Protestantism’s advent require validation and simultaneous explanation of how the extant Church from which it developed could be “wrong”. And this requirement stands for each development needed to arrive at any denomination currently extant, no matter how obscure.
Obfuscation of the Church’s historical authority and visibility is about the only viable strategy to achieve this.

I’ve been watching Jon try to normalize this narrative for over a year now. And for my occasional over-step, I’ll happily apologize. But for my attempts at challenging his idea? No apology offered nor will there ever be.

I’m still happy to buy the guy a beer if ever we meet.

 

[JonNC]

To the thread- @JonNC has a problem with the word “Protestant”. He doesn’t like the fact that it’s nearly universally defined in terms that mention the Catholicism from which it factually, historically developed.

As is often the case, @Vonsalza has misrepresented my position.
What I have said is the fact that I posted earlier; that the term Protestant has its origin the formal protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529. It was a protest of the decisions of civil to limit religious liberty of the Reformation churches.
To be sure, Catholic officials were complicit in this, just like the were complicit in the burning at the stake of individuals, even though the Church itself did not fo it.
And while Protestant did not mean a “protest” of Catholic teachings or authority, that doesn’t minimize the theological disagreements of the time and since.
The false understanding I wish to convey is this and what I responded to above : the idea that there was a time that there was a single Protestant church or theology.
Labeling all Protestants in these was is factually and historically inaccurate.
But facts are just an inconvenience to Vonsalza

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh how tiresome…

No one is arguing that “protestant” means some singular discrete thing. I’ve never seen that argued.

The word is like “cat” or “dog”; of which there are several types.

Your primary point seems to be a retort to an argument that literally no one is making.

 

[JonNC]

No one is arguing that “protestant” means some singular discrete thing. I’ve never seen that argued.

Oh my goodness. Take a few hours and read through the numerous threads on CAF on the topic. Over and over and over, the talk is about how all the Protestants splintered from Luther.

 

[tgGodsway]

O goodness no.

 

[guanophore]

He is one of my favorite Non-Catholic Christians on this forum. He has very orthodox faith. I think he lacks very little to agree with everything we profess, which is alot more than we can say for the majority of Catholics!

Indeed, if the majority of Catholics were more like JonNC, the Church would be a whole lot healthier!

The First Vatican Council defined the dogma of papal infallibility and clarified its limits… I’m not sure what you meant by the Pope declaring himself infallible?

The gift if infallibility is a negative gift, which means that the Church is prevented from falling into error. The Pope, speaking on behalf of the Church, is protected by this gift. It does not mean the Pope himself is infallible or even impeccable.

How so? Dirty rubs off onto clean, not the other way around. When those fellas left the Church their ability to validly ordain (and thus pass on the succession) was destroyed.

This is not consistent with the Church teaching. Those in schism are still considered validly ordained (since it is permanent) and valid Bishops can still validly ordain priests. This is one of the reasons the Church recognizes the valid Holy Orders and sacraments of the Orthodox.

7 councils are mutually agreed upon as economical.

I bet they weren’t. They probably cost thousands in todays standards. Travel, security, food, lodging,…

 

[JonNC]

I bet they weren’t. They probably cost thousands in todays standards. Travel, security, food, lodging,…

lol. I love autocorrect.
Ecumenical

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

How so? Dirty rubs off onto clean, not the other way around. When those fellas left the Church their ability to validly ordain (and thus pass on the succession) was destroyed.

This is not consistent with the Church teaching.

I’m afraid it is. If a schismatic Bishop tries to raise another to the office without the authorization of the pope, both the bishop and the individual consecrated are automatically excommunicated and it can be lifted only by the Holy See. Recall that this pertains to the “Dutch Touch”, as was being discussed.

I may have used the incorrect word - “illicit” is better, but the end is the same. The succession through them ends, as was the point.

Be careful what you’re willing to trade in the name of ecumenism; particularly when your trading partner doesn’t seem to be offering anything.

 

[dallas_r]

Anglicans use writings of Church Fathers.

 

[guanophore]

I may have used the incorrect word - “illicit” is better, but the end is the same. The succession through them ends, as was the point.

Yes, illicit does apply, but the Holy Orders are valid, nonetheless. Otherwise the Holy Orders of the Orthordox would not be valid.

Be careful what you’re willing to trade in the name of ecumenism; particularly when your trading partner doesn’t seem to be offering anything.

In principle, I would agree, but I am not interested in “trading” anything.

Anglicans use writings of Church Fathers.

Anglicans, as many high Church Lutherans, read the Fathers, and accept Holy Tradition as it is reflected in the first 7 Councils of the Church.

 

[PJM]

The Bible was printed well after the life of Christ.

Catholics rely on Scripture, Church Fathers, SAcred Tradition and the Magisterium

Please define “Well after” … the bible according to exergecets was FULLY authored [WRITTEN] by the end of the 1st Century. That my friend is about 70 years after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Is THAT really “well after?”

Granted the printing Press was a ways away from that.

God Bless you
Patrick

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Glad to see that you are posting.

 

[guanophore]

Glad to see that you are posting.

Thank you! it was a very long fast from CAF.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Glad to see that you are posting.

Thank you! it was a very long fast from CAF.

Those can be necessary. I view you as a poster par excellence, even though I often disagree with you, and you do post in a way that makes Catholicism attractive. Many could learn from how you do apologetics.

Live long and prosper!

 

[JonNC]

guanophore:

SojournerOnEarth:

Glad to see that you are posting.

Thank you! it was a very long fast from CAF.

Those can be necessary.

Necessary, but in Guanophore’s case, sorely missed.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

You, Guano, and Don Ruggero returned, and then GKC. What’s not to love about that?

 

[Cjb82919]

No it’s not based on Scripture alone. Many Protestants base their doctrines on the writings of early Reformers a lot of which is not supported by Scripture