Which Church??

[JonNC]

So, Jon, could you please clarify: is this “divorce” permitted and sanctioned?

If the Catholic Church tomorrow decided that female priests were permitted, whould you “divorce” your view from the leadership?

I did. When I was ELCA. It may not be sanctioned, or permitted. Neither is a female priest, scripturally, confessionally, historically.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

there is a difference, Randy, between confirm and accept. Confirm has the implication of power not to confirm. If the council does not sit, then that power to confirm or not to confirm is denied.
If St. Peter had the power to interpret, receive, overturn, and the council had not the power to not confirm, then the council is useless. I don’t believe the early Church - in Acts and later - set up a useless device.

Jon

Oy…Jon, this comment is a doozy. What are you saying…?

 

[JonNC]

Oy…Jon, this comment is a doozy. What are you saying…?

I’m saying that, even if you accept the primacy of the Pope, which I do, that is not the same as supremacy. The early Church determined things via the council, not via one patriarch.

This is easily solved, however. The issue of “which Church” is, at least for me, solved beyond doubt, when the Great Schism that divides the historic Church is resolved, reconciled, and full communion restored.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Um, no. A straw man is a ***misrepresentation ***of someone’s argument – what you’ve re-stated is the actual position of Faithdancer and others. To wit, protestants “rely on their God-given reason, expository preaching, formal and and informal education, Bible commentaries, etc.” Everyone knows protestants don’t have a magisterium. Jubilarian asked “what do you rely on to interpret scripture?”

It is you who has introduced a straw man by misrepresenting Jubilarian’s question.

Straw man:

Straw man:

Nice try, but not cigar.

What is a “Straw Man”:

It is a fallacy where an opponent’s argument is overstated and/or misrepresented so that their argument could be more easily attacked or refuted.

So whenever any person points out to Protestant Authority, it implies such a thing as a Protestant Church. Which does not exist. And the poster did not say that he/she belongs to the Protestant Church. Protestant is but a term that is widely used and misused.

So when a Catholic interprets scripture and then makes a decision to the following:

Molinism or Thomism

The Catholic is making use of their private interpretation. Oh noes… “But there must be one truth” says the Amateur Catholic Apologist. How can that be?

The truth is, that we Catholics use our own private interpretation of Scriptures.

It is deceitful to imply otherwise.

The worst part is that we, as Catholics, don’t even have a full Study Bible that is linked to the CCC and Patristic material. That is just shameful. Not taking into consideration that the CCC is really new (less than 100 years old) and it needed a Saint to finally put together a compendium of the Faith. Again, shameful.

Instead of trying to fight arguments against scripture so much, we should focus on arguing with scriptures.

From the CCC:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Argue the benefits of Catholic Church Hierarchy and Government. And forget the fallacious private interpretation argument.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to take care of a plank in my eye.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m saying that, even if you accept the primacy of the Pope, which I do, that is not the same as supremacy. The early Church determined things via the council, not via one patriarch.

This is easily solved, however. The issue of “which Church” is, at least for me, solved beyond doubt, when the Great Schism that divides the historic Church is resolved, reconciled, and full communion restored.

Jon

Which was still the official teaching in the 1,400’s:

Council of Constance: Sacrosancta, 1415

In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - **It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. **. . .

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m saying that, even if you accept the primacy of the Pope, which I do, that is not the same as supremacy. The early Church determined things via the council, not via one patriarch.

This is easily solved, however. The issue of “which Church” is, at least for me, solved beyond doubt, when the Great Schism that divides the historic Church is resolved, reconciled, and full communion restored.

Jon

This sounds kinda like a “no-fault” divorce. However, in some cases, one party really is in the wrong, and if any reconciliation is to occur, that party simply needs to move back in after the separation.

BTW- Have you read Bainton’s book on Luther?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The point is, as it always is in these types of discussions: where does the buck stop?

Now that’s where the focus should be.

 

[JonNC]

This sounds kinda like a “no-fault” divorce. However, in some cases, one party really is in the wrong, and if any reconciliation is to occur, that party simply needs to move back in after the separation.

BTW- Have you read Bainton’s book on Luther?

Goodness, Randy. In my teens! Probably need to again.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Topper,

“The early Reformation was characterized by the optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

As we know, the original believer in that false ‘optimism’ was Martin Luther. That optimistic belief turned out to be completely refuted by the fact of the doctrinal diversity of those who advocated that belief. The Magisterial Reformation steered away from Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation after they saw what a disaster it was. The genie though released by Luther,(Private Interpretation) simply would not go back into the bottle. The result is the catastrophic doctrinal dissension that continues to weaken Christianity overall.

McGrath goes on to state:

**“It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny it less educated members ****direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretations from that of the magisterial reformers)………****The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. ****To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. ****The principal of the ‘clarity of Scripture appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.” **McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 165

Early on in this thread I pointed out that the Lutheran approach since the Augsburg Confession is to place doctrine outside of personal interpretation. McGrath seems to here confirm what I was saying.

This is exactly the point that I have been making all along. The principals that Luther used to start the Reformation, SS+PI, did not work in the real world. He had to backtrack towards the “Catholic model”.

There is here, however, a conflating of SS with PI here. Lutherans have not backtracked on SS.
It is, however, interesting that you claim that “he”, meaning Luther, backtracked. Earlier in this thread, I essentially said the same, noting that he approved the of Augsburg Confession

Because Protestantism has no central authority, it has no capability to refute beliefs which are outside the mainstream (whatever that mainstream might be according to the individual). This cannot be said of the Catholic Church

Of course it can’t. The Catholic Church is one communion. My communion, too, has a central authority. Neither yours nor mine has authority over, say the UMC. To expect one central authority in this sense is like pointing out that the countries of South America do not have one central authority.

The positive here is that, as you admit here, the Lutheran stance is similar to that of the Catholic Church, which hopefully provides a sound footing for further dialogue.

Jon

 

[dronald]

No, ronald. The correct paradigm is: find the Church Jesus established. And then conform your views to Christ’s Church.

How?

I don’t shop around to see which Church makes the most sense to me. That’s absurd. If that were true, I’d be at the church down the street.

Why does that one make more sense to you?

 

[dronald]

Not exactly, Jon.

Who interpreted scripture and determined that Judas Iscariot must be replaced? Peter.

Who received a vision from God that the Gentiles would come into the Church? Peter.

Who overturned Mosaic Law by saying that circumcision would not be required of those Gentiles? Peter.

The council met to determine if Peter had acted properly, and it confirmed what Peter had already taught. IOW, the council did not make policy, it accepted the policy already established by Peter back in Acts 10.

So you follow Cephas eh?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you follow Cephas eh?

Why do you lay this trap for me?

Because you incorrectly see a dichotomy between Jesus Christ and Peter, and you are eager to spring this on me:

1 Corinthians 1:10-18
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 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.”

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

John 21:15-21
"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
"Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
"The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
"Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Didn’t Jesus declare Himself to be the Good Shepherd? Here’s the verse: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) He also says that a shepherd is willing to die to protect the sheep.

Has he now given this job to Peter and declared him to be the shepherd of the Church? Sure looks that way to me.

Did He prophesy about the death of Peter? Looks like he did to me. So, Jesus, the Good Shepherd, hands His crook to Peter and tells him to care for His flock which will include dying for those in his care.

Could the role of Peter as head of the Church be identified more closely with Christ than this? I don’t think so.

Hope this helps.

 

[dronald]

Why do you lay this trap for me?

Because you incorrectly see a dichotomy between Jesus Christ and Peter, and you are eager to spring this on me:

1 Corinthians 1:10-18
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 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.

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

John 21:15-21
"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
"Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
"The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
"Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Didn’t Jesus declare Himself to be the Good Shepherd? Here’s the verse: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) He also says that a shepherd is willing to die to protect the sheep.

Has he now given this job to Peter and declared him to be the shepherd of the Church? Sure looks that way to me.

Did He prophesy about the death of Peter? Looks like he did to me. So, Jesus, the Good Shepherd, hands His crook to Peter and tells him to care for His flock which will include dying for those in his care.

Could the role of Peter as head of the Church be identified more closely with Christ than this? I don’t think so.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Not a trap at all. I just think it’s funny when others argue about this or that Apostle. Clearly a division between your Church and the Orthodox is your belief on Peter. A difference in words; supremacy or primacy, whatever. It’s all silly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not a trap at all. I just think it’s funny when others argue about this or that Apostle. Clearly a division between your Church and the Orthodox is your belief on Peter. A difference in words; supremacy or primacy, whatever. It’s all silly.

That’s not the card you wanted to play.

 

[benhur]

The subject was the interpretation of scripture( the written word) not what is passed down orally or through tradition.

 

[spedteacherita]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

Do you believe that it’s the church you attend that saves you?

Matthew 7:7 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

There are many people in all the Christian churches who may not have the redemption that Christ earned for us because they don’t have the faith that God has shared with us. (Matt. 20:18 For many are called but few are chosen.)
Also: Matthew 7:22 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

It’s the faith we have received through the Holy Spirit and redemption of Christ’s death that saves us.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I believe that God the Father sent His Son Jesus to redeem us from our sinful nature. The Holy Spirit led me to this Truth and because of His commandment I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If I were to die today/tonight I know that I will enter the gates of Heaven because of my belief in Him and His Word.

My father passed away 5 years ago and I know that, because of his faith and belief in Christ and his baptism as a child, He entered God’s kingdom that beautiful, sunny morning. He did not belong to any church but expressed his belief not very long before he passed away.

The church we attend does not save us; that happens only through the mystery and love of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The “truth” that you spoke of lies only in this.

God bless you!

 

[Topper17]

…

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thof,

Thanks for your response. I am very happy that you have brought up the subject of France because it does prove my point.

But what about the statistics from France, another “Catholic country”?
ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

First of all, the subject was Sweden, but since you brought up France, the following comes to mind:

Q: Do you know how many troops it takes to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows because it hasn’t ever been tried.

I recall this not to disparage the French, but as an introduction to the fact that within the subset of countries which are predominately Catholic, France is an outlier, a statistical aberration. A review of the condition of Europe, not just France and Sweden reveals a very important trend, and for me, in almost everything, trends are extremely important.
The following spreadsheet tells the whole story.

Country % Who Have a Belief In God % RCC (or EO) % Lutheran
Greece 81 98
Portugal 80 81
Italy 74 88
Ireland 73 72
Spain 59 68
Germany 47 29 31
Finland 41 0 75
Iceland 41 4 75
France 34 51
Netherlands 34 15 14
Norway 32 2 76
Denmark 31 1 92
Sweden 23 2 75

I don’t know how the trend could be any more clear. The obvious conclusion is that Protestantism leads to a disbelief in God. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan is attacking the whole church, but where he is having his greatest success is in the predominately Protestant countries, and in fact, the Lutheran countries. Those countries which have been influenced mostly (or totally) by Lutheranism are ones which have the least faith in God.

In fact, if you look at a map of Europe you will see that the belief in God is much stronger in Southeran Europe (where Protestantism never took hold) and the weakest in Northern Europe (which was ‘won’ by the “Reformers”).

As I have been saying for years, Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation leads to a lesser importance of Doctrine, which leads ultimately to disbelief. The facts are in and they are quite obvious.

In all honestly Thof, if I were a young Lutheran (or Protestant) family man who wanted my Children to be life-long Christians, I would be planning to swim the Tiber RIGHT NOW.

If you believe that I have misrepresented the facts or drawn an illogical conclusion, then please explain why, specifically and exactly.

God Bless You Thof, Topper

 

[benhur]

This trend when extrapolated out into the future, indicates that Protestantism is doomed to fail, probably just fading away into a memory.

You are going to far with math logic .Mainline is declining but not P’s overall, especially in other parts of the World. Even so it is tough to show quality over quantity. There will be an outpouring but also a falling away. There will be persecution making early church Roman persecution seem “easy”. Only true Christians will persevere, and the days shortened for their sakes. All denominations will be tested and only strong believers will remain. So the numbers have a lot to take in account

Satan attacks the Christian Church (or church whichever the case may be) wherever it is, but NOWHERE has he been as successful as he has been in the most Protestant countries.

Perhaps. Satan also attacks the best (Peter was attacked). He leaves the un born again religious alone ,as in Jesus’s day Jewish /Christian in name only. See how it can go both ways?

Common sense would indicate that Sola Scriptura, the “Right of Private Interpretation” AND Salvation by Faith Alone have ALL had a rather tragic impact on Christianity and Christian morals in those countries.

OK. Catholicism in many places is deep into the culture but again spiritual vitality is difficult to see thru when tradition may be the reason for adherence. Spain used to be very very Catholic, but the women had bigger spiritual roles in home and the men quietly had mistress for divorce was definitely out. See how it can be a mixed bag ? I will say the Church in Spain is declined to where she has a very bad divorce rate in Europe. France is bad but England may have caught up also.businessinsider.com/map-divorce-rates-around-the-world-2014-5 ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Crude_divorce_rate,selected_years,1960%E2%80%932012%281%29%28per_1_000_inhabitants%29_YB14.png

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thof,

Thanks for your response. I am very happy that you have brought up the subject of France because it does prove my point.

But what about the statistics from France, another “Catholic country”?
ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

With all due respect Thof, the subject was Sweden, but since you brought up France, the following comes to mind:

Q: Do you know how many troops it takes to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows because it hasn’t ever been tried.

I recall this not to disparage the French, but as an introduction to the fact that within the subset of countries which are predominately Catholic, France is an outlier, a statistical aberration. A review of the condition of Europe, not just France and Sweden reveals a very important trend, and for me, in almost everything, trends are extremely important.
The following spreadsheet tells the whole story.

I don’t know how the trend could be any more clear. The obvious conclusion is that Protestantism leads to a disbelief in God. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan is attacking the whole church, but where he is having his greatest success is in the predominately Protestant countries, and in fact, the Lutheran countries. Those countries which have been influenced mostly (or totally) by Lutheranism are ones which have the least faith in God.

Country
Greece % Who Have a Belief In God - 81%, RCC or EO - 98%
Portugal % Who Have a Belief In God - 80%, RCC or EO - 81%
Italy % Who Have a Belief In God - 74%, RCC or EO - 88%
Ireland % Who Have a Belief In God - 73%, RCC or EO - 72%
Spain % Who Have a Belief In God - 59%, RCC or EO - 68%
Germany % Who Have a Belief In God - 47%, RCC or EO - 29%, Lutheran - 31%
Finland % Who Have a Belief In God - 41%, RCC or EO -0%, Lutheran - 75%
Iceland % Who Have a Belief In God - 41%, RCC or EO - 4%, Lutheran - 75%
France % Who Have a Belief In God - 34%, RCC or EO - 51%, Lutheran - 0%
Netherlands% Who Have a Belief In God - 34%, RCC or EO - 15%, Lutheran - 14%
Norway % Who Have a Belief In God - 32%, RCC or EO - 2%, Lutheran - 76%
Denmark % Who Have a Belief In God - 31%, RCC or EO - 1% , Lutheran - 92%
Sweden % Who Have a Belief In God - 23% RCC or EO - 2%, Lutheran - 76%

Sorry for the clumsiness of the data, but when you look at it you recognize that the more influence Lutheranism has had on a country, the less that country will believe in God. If you really want to see the correlation, just plot the data.

In fact, if you look at a map of Europe you will see that the belief in God is much stronger in Southeran Europe (where Protestantism never took hold) and the weakest in Northern Europe (which was ‘won’ by the “Reformers”).

In all honestly Thof, if I were a young Lutheran (or Protestant) family man who wanted my Children to be life-long Christians, I would be planning to swim the Tiber RIGHT NOW.

If you believe that I have misrepresented the facts or drawn an illogical conclusion, then please explain why, specifically and exactly. In fact, I would be interested in your take on the above facts.

God Bless You Thof, Topper