- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then I hope you can understand my objection:That’s the only answer I can give.
Jon
One cannot say, "We hold this definition “A"and others ought not depart from it”, while belonging to a communion which began by declaring “I do not have to hold to your definition of “B”, “C” and “D””.
PR,
…which was part of a communion that also decided on their own definition of “H”,“I”, and “J”, contrary to that of the early Church. You see, PR, that argument has a lot of versions. It also seems like an odd one to have, considering there are truly doctrinal topics.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
But Jon, the CC does NOT sanction the idea that one can depart from H, I and J.
So we say either the CC is wrong or the Orthodox Church is wrong on H,I and J. (Although, to be more accurate, it seems like there is only 1 doctrine, H, which there is departure).
But your communion seems to be saying, “Yes, it is permissible to do this”.
But then the communion also says, “No, it is not permissible to do this. It was only permissible for one person to do this 500 years ago, but now no one else should do this.”
Does this not bother you?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
You know, that is exactly what the founders of Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses believed as well. So, they founded churches that are the authoritative interpreters of Scripture. Joseph Smith was a “prophet” and the Watchtower Society is “God’s channel of communication to mankind.” Both the Mormon Church and the Watchtower Society are miniature Catholic Churches.
You might think of these organizations as examples of the Protestant Reformation gone to seed, that is, the principle of reform or protest being finally turned against itself.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And they are correct, at least, in this.
I agree.
Truly Ecumenical councils, which hasn’t happened since before the Great Schism.
Jon
Where does my. communion say that departure from doctrine is permissible? Read the the CA and how many times it says , “They condemn…” ( they being the churches).
But your point then is that only that portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome may change, depart from, "develop " doctrine.
Jon
A
adf417
Guest
That’s the point Jon. These organizations are indeed not Protestant, even under the broadest definition, but their founders, at least with the JWs i dont know Mormanism, were protestant prior to begening these bogus organisims. And their motivations and pretense at the time of leaving the Protestant movent is the same as what PR and others have been trying to show in this and many other threads.
Peace!!!
P
PRmerger
Guest
So what Fr. Luther, a Catholic, did was not permissible?
Either what Fr. Luther did was permissible, and that means that all NCCs are permitted to do what he did and “reform” Lutheran teaching (or leave it and start their own church with their own definitions)…
Or what he did was not permissible.
You see, Jon, you cannot make an exception for one man, 500 years ago, to do something that for every other Christian you would say: you cannot do this.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Exactly.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
That’s right, they do not think of themselves as Protestant, nor do I suppose Protestants think of them as Protestant. (They think of themselves as divine restorations of the true church, and as such, have divine authorization to teach and interpret the bible.)
However, the point is, the founders of these movements, or cults as Walter Martin called them, came out of Protestantism, and had the mindset of Protestantism. That is, to reform or protest against the ambient religion, which in their case in the United States was Protestantism, not Catholicism. So these groups are heirs of the Reformation.
They’re not Protestant because they are not Christian, the belief in the Triune God. Therefore, they are no more heirs to the Reformation than they are to Catholicism.
You’ll have to describe your idea of the mindset of protestant. For me it is well demonstrated by the USCCB since the passing of ACA and the HHS mandate: protesting government limitation on free exercise of religious practice.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
He did, Jon.
In the very next sentence he said: That is, to reform or protest against the ambient religion, which in their case in the United States was Protestantism, not Catholicism. So these groups are heirs of the Reformation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Right.
They are doing to Protestantism exactly what Fr. Luther did to Catholicism.
So either it is permissible for them, as it was permissible for Fr. Luther…
OR
It is forbidden for them (that is, they ought not depart from the kerygma), as it was forbidden for Fr. Luther.
One cannot make an exception for one man, 500 years ago, to do something and deny every other Christian the right to do what he did.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Agreed, they are not Christian. And, certainly, they are not heirs to Protestant theology.
Perhaps it is more of a spirit, the idea of reform inherited from the Reformation. I have a book about Lutheranism written by a Lutheran, and it discusses the Reformation, and says it is important to know when the reform is complete. That is, when to stop reforming. That book is right, it is very important, and Lutherans obviously feel that the reform is complete with them. However, and this is the point, others continued the Reformation. Reforming keeps going on, with different groups stopping along the way, but others continuing, demonstrated by the proliferation of denominations.
In Europe, Protestants had the spectre of inherited Catholicism to protest or reform against, but in this Protestant country, what they had was Protestantism itself, to protest or reform against, since that is the Protestant spirit or mindset, to protest and reform. When to stop?
Hence the cults, as Walter Martin called them. They were founded by those who had Protestant upbringings, but decided what they had been taught needed reforming, and so started up new, non-Protestant, and pseudo-Christian religions.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
We’re going round in circles here, so let’s be clear.
The Lutheran can say something along the lines of:
Reform and, if necessary, revolt against normal authority in the Church of God, is permissible if and only if that authority is so corrupt that Christian doctrine and praxis deteriorate to the point at which the Word of God is not properly preached and/or the Holy Sacraments are not reverently celebrated.
The Lutheran will believe that this situation obtains in 1520s Germany, and therefore Luther’s actions were justified.
They only need agree that subsequent reformers were justified if and only if those reformers existed in situations where the above also obtains.
The Lutheran is perfectly consistent with his principles in thinking that, after Luther’s reform, no such situation obtained or obtains in the churches of that reformation, and that further reform or revolt against authority would be unjustified.
Obviously you reject these premises, but you can’t really accuse my hypothetical Lutheran of being inconsistent. I imagine that Jon holds something like the above to be true, though I apologise to him if not!
That, and a step further ( for me personally): the Reform is not complete without reunification. This is why ecumenical dialogue is so important, and why I believe, more and more, that the tone of apologetics needs to mirror that of theologians ( not saying that those on this thread aren’t).
Jon
- Status