Which Church??

[chero23]

Why do ya’ll have to exaggerate everything?

A lot of Protestant churches say they follow the bible alone right?

All of them say they are inspired by the Holy Spirit right?

But if you were to ask the church, not the member who hardly foes to the church, but if you look at what that church teaches, if you ask 4 churches about abortion for example you will get 4 different answers.

God is not that confused, something’s gotta give. Either these churches are lying, or God is so confused.

 

[chero23]

No offense, PRmerger, but to me it sounds like you’re trying to push Roman Catholic teaching to the process of searching for a faith tradition. Not all of us agree with your points. Perhaps, these are the ways that you would approach it and I don’t think those are bad at all for you or anyone else who agrees with you. Please note that I put “My take and it’s only my opinion” at the very beginning.

Not:

“… what I want it to say …”

but rather I think this is best … (again, just my opinion)

“… what makes sense to me.”

Perhaps I misworded that.

Pax.

I don’t think that he’s pushing Catholicism on anybody, I do believe though, when you actually search for the Church, it will lead you to one place and that is Rome. We have scripture, history as well as the early church fathers to back that up.

 

[cisco_1]

A lot of Protestant churches say they follow the bible alone right?

All of them say they are inspired by the Holy Spirit right?

But if you were to ask the church, not the member who hardly foes to the church, but if you look at what that church teaches, if you ask 4 churches about abortion for example you will get 4 different answers.

God is not that confused, something’s gotta give. Either these churches are lying, or God is so confused.

I don’t think that God is confused, it is the churches that are and for the right reasons to. This maybe unchristian/uncatholic of me to say but there are “times for everything”… not every situation is static in the wrongs or right. There are situations where what is popularly wrong maybe the right thing to do in the specific situation. I’m not a pro-choice person or anything, but i do think there are times where abortion and controseptives can be alowed.

Here’s a true story. There was this man who really loved his pregnant wife. Now the baby in her womb was still an embryo. What happened was this embryo became poisonous to her body and she had to be rushed to the hospital because of it. The only hospital available was a Catholic hospital and of course, due to the churches rule, the embryo could not be destroid.In order for them to have a chance, the husband had to write a letter to the church incharge of the hospital… and you know how long approval letters can take right? So the whole approval took 2 weeks for it to reach the office, however the wife died 2 days after she was brought to the hospital. Do you think the church was right to do this, because abortion is forbiden? They just cost someone elses life over a doctrine, not just her life but can you imagine the life long pain the husband is now going through because of that?

Here is a second true story. In the Philippines… There is this low class Wife and Husband who has more than 12 kids, the oldest being 8 years old… research on the Poverty in the Philippines to know how bad it is. that is 14 people for a poor family to support. Why so much kids? The reason why people in poverty have a high reproductive rate is because sex is the only thing they know that can make them feel happy. They have to struggle for food and shelter, and they are not educated enough on safe sex. Now obviously, the husband is making minimum wage to support the 12 kids and the wife while the wife is taking care of the 12 of them. Now eventually, the father fell ill and eventually died… how is this mother going to raise all 12 of them and work to put food on the table and a decent room on their head to protect them from the typhoons. This example is not on the earlier topic, abortion but on the need for birth control.

I’m not saying that abortion and contraceptives should be followed, no… but my point is that there are situations where WE can not use “what are Church and Scripture says” in dealing with it. Most Protestants and Catholics who you claim support abortion - support it because of this reality.

 

[chero23]

I don’t think that God is confused, it is the churches that are and for the right reasons to. This maybe unchristian/uncatholic of me to say but there are “times for everything”… not every situation is static in the wrongs or right. There are situations where what is popularly wrong maybe the right thing to do in the specific situation. I’m not a pro-choice person or anything, but i do think there are times where abortion and controseptives can be alowed.

Here’s a true story. There was this man who really loved his pregnant wife. Now the baby in her womb was still an embryo. What happened was this embryo became poisonous to her body and she had to be rushed to the hospital because of it. The only hospital available was a Catholic hospital and of course, due to the churches rule, the embryo could not be destroid.In order for them to have a chance, the husband had to write a letter to the church incharge of the hospital… and you know how long approval letters can take right? So the whole approval took 2 weeks for it to reach the office, however the wife died 2 days after she was brought to the hospital. Do you think the church was right to do this, because abortion is forbiden? They just cost someone elses life over a doctrine, not just her life but can you imagine the life long pain the husband is now going through because of that?

Here is a second true story. In the Philippines… There is this low class Wife and Husband who has more than 12 kids, the oldest being 8 years old… research on the Poverty in the Philippines to know how bad it is. that is 14 people for a poor family to support. Why so much kids? The reason why people in poverty have a high reproductive rate is because sex is the only thing they know that can make them feel happy. They have to struggle for food and shelter, and they are not educated enough on safe sex. Now obviously, the husband is making minimum wage to support the 12 kids and the wife while the wife is taking care of the 12 of them. Now eventually, the father fell ill and eventually died… how is this mother going to raise all 12 of them and work to put food on the table and a decent room on their head to protect them from the typhoons. This example is not on the earlier topic, abortion but on the need for birth control.

I’m not saying that abortion and contraceptives should be followed, no… but my point is that there are situations where WE can not use “what are Church and Scripture says” in dealing with it. Most Protestants and Catholics who you claim support abortion - support it because of this reality.

Im with you, and there might be situations were the Church has said you know, that’s ok. But overall you have to maintain the truth. My sister is 23 and she gets the depo shot, that’s so she can not get pregnant. The reason why she got it, was bc she would get hysterical whenever she got her period. We went and spoke to the priest, and even went to a Catholic OB/GYN dr, and both helped us. I know what you mean, but these cases are very few in between. The thing is society wants their situation to be the different one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As we have trouble with "invisible’ we may with “private”. Any true judgement is very personal but not private. A bit like saying RC is a very unique individual, as is everybody else. What you are critiquing is the very paradigm of how God deals with mortal man.

Ben-

I’d like to refer you to the following:

jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment

If you can make it all the way to the end, I think you will understand what I was saying.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like the JW’s ? They are fully centralized are are quite "carbon copy’’ round the world, even more so than Catholicism. Most mainline denominations have central authority and power to regulate and limit diversity.

Centralization is not the problem; lack of intellectual freedom, is.

In the Catholic Church, there is some centralization and some freedom.

Not everything or every thought is controlled from Rome (which may surprise more than a few fundamentalists).

 

[PRmerger]

jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment.

Another one to save for the hard drive!

Thanks for posting it!

 

[PRmerger]

Another one to save for the hard drive!

Thanks for posting it!

Thus, while publicly embracing private interpretation of Scripture, in essence what each Protestant denomination has is a special group of folks who actually do the interpreting and advocates that its members conform to this group’s interpretations.

"The typical Protestant church thus unconsciously reinvents the Catholic system that it consciously scorns. "–Jimmy Akin

If this were Facebook I’d click “Like”!

 

[JonNC]

Thus, while publicly embracing private interpretation of Scripture, in essence what each Protestant denomination has is a special group of folks who actually do the interpreting and advocates that its members conform to this group’s interpretations.

"The typical Protestant church thus unconsciously reinvents the Catholic system that it consciously scorns. "–Jimmy Akin

If this were Facebook I’d click “Like”!

I don’t know if it is, within Lutheranism, “unconscious”. It has always been the case within Lutheranism that the Church determines doctrine, not individual laity. The issue was what is the source to be used by the Church to determine said doctrine. The Lutheran tradition holds that scripture is the final norm, and tradition a witness to said doctrine.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if it is, within Lutheranism, “unconscious”. It has always been the case within Lutheranism that the Church determines doctrine, not individual laity. The issue was what is the source to be used by the Church to determine said doctrine. The Lutheran tradition holds that scripture is the final norm, and tradition a witness to said doctrine.

Jon

But you see where the confusion lies, then, Jon.

What is not permitted today–the individual departing from what your church has determined–is exactly what it claimed to be able to do for itself against the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if it is, within Lutheranism, “unconscious”. It has always been the case within Lutheranism that the Church determines doctrine, not individual laity. The issue was what is the source to be used by the Church to determine said doctrine. The Lutheran tradition holds that scripture is the final norm, and tradition a witness to said doctrine.

Jon

As Jimmy Akin states: "This was necessary as an answer to the Catholic question, “Who are you to overturn a historic Christian teaching which has already been settled by the Magisterium? You are not even a member of that body, much less the whole of it, and such doctrines can never change to begin with.” In the face of this question, the Reformers were driven to answer, “We do not need to be the whole of the Magisterium, or even individual members of it, for every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which, we admit, Christ intended his Church to have.”

 

[PRmerger]

As Jimmy Akin states: "This was necessary as an answer to the Catholic question, “Who are you to overturn a historic Christian teaching which has already been settled by the Magisterium? You are not even a member of that body, much less the whole of it, and such doctrines can never change to begin with.” In the face of this question, the Reformers were driven to answer, “We do not need to be the whole of the Magisterium, or even individual members of it, for every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which, we admit, Christ intended his Church to have.”

More…

“And so Protestant churches trundle along, teaching their members that they have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves**, yet continuing to function as if there is a special class of people within them–a Magisterium–to whom the task of interpreting the Scriptures for the people has really been entrusted.** And, for the sake of the survival of the group, the interpretations of this Magisterium have the force of law so that open and public dissenters may be purged for the health of the body.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Another one to save for the hard drive!

Thanks for posting it!

I’ve been working on an idea for a few days that runs like this:

Protestants rejected Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church leaving them with sola scriptura. In the place of the Magisterium, they substituted private judgment.

The Orthodox also rejected the Magisterium of the Church (the infallibility of the pope particularly). In the place of the Magisterium, they, too, substituted private judgment.

A two-legged stool is only slightly more stable than a one-legged stool.

I wrote about this extensively in an Orthodox thread wherein I summarized my argument like this:

Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

Later, I discovered that Fr. Brian Harrison rejected Orthodoxy for almost the exact reason, and he wrote an article for Catholic Answers giving a lengthier explanation of the problem.

Needless to say, the thread got nasty pretty quickly as those discussion always do, but posts #1 & #96 of the thread were written not by me but by Orthodox, so some among them can honestly admit that they have a major problem. Like the fault lines in California that hidden just beneath the surface, it’s not a question of if but when the eruptions finally shake things up in the East.

We may even feel a few tremors in this thread now.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been working on an idea for a few days that runs like this:

Protestants rejected Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church leaving them with sola scriptura. In the place of the Magisterium, they substituted private judgment.

The Orthodox also rejected the Magisterium of the Church (the infallibility of the pope particularly). In the place of the Magisterium, they, too, substituted private judgment.

A two-legged stool is only slightly more stable than a one-legged stool.

I wrote about this extensively in an Orthodox thread wherein I summarized my argument like this:

Many Orthodox believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This “receptionism” theory unwittingly encourages individual believers to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. Rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!

This problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. By separating its Patriarchs from their God-ordained head, the Bishop of Rome, Orthodoxy has undermined the authority of its own patriarchs to teach authoritatively and infallibly. Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops.

Later, I discovered that Fr. Brian Harrison rejected Orthodoxy for almost the exact reason, and he wrote an article for Catholic Answers giving a lengthier explanation of the problem.

Needless to say, the thread got nasty pretty quickly as those discussion always do, but posts #1 & #96 of the thread were written not by me but by Orthodox, so some among them can honestly admit that they have a major problem. Like the fault lines in California that hidden just beneath the surface, it’s not a question of if but when the eruptions finally shake things up in the East.

We may even feel a few tremors in this thread now.

I’d click “Like” on FB for this, too.

 

[JonNC]

As Jimmy Akin states: "This was necessary as an answer to the Catholic question, “Who are you to overturn a historic Christian teaching which has already been settled by the Magisterium? You are not even a member of that body, much less the whole of it, and such doctrines can never change to begin with.” In the face of this question, the Reformers were driven to answer, “We do not need to be the whole of the Magisterium, or even individual members of it, for every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which, we admit, Christ intended his Church to have.”

The claim of the reformers was that it was not “historic” Christian teaching. For example, we would still say today that universal jurisdiction was not historic teaching of the Church, and our friend in Eastern Orthodoxy whose churches are/were a part of that historic Church would agree with us on the matter.

Hence, the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Church only represents one view of those historic teachings, even if one discounts entirely the Reformation traditions.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Akin, he presents the Catholic view with honor and charity, but he is presenting the Catholic view.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

More…

"And so Protestant churches trundle along, teaching their members that they have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves**, yet continuing to function as if there is a special class of people within them–a Magisterium–to whom the task of interpreting the Scriptures for the people has really been entrusted.** And, for the sake of the survival of the group, the interpretations of this Magisterium have the force of law so that open and public dissenters may be purged for the health of the body."

And yet, this has never been the teaching of the Lutheran tradition, at least since Augsburg. The Augsburg Confession does not include a provision that these are “suggestions” for the layman to consider, accept or dismiss at their choosing.
My catechesis was not limited to being given a Bible and then being told to go home and make of it whatever you choose, that being Lutheran is defined as having total authority to determine doctrine for myself.

There may be other communions that do that, but it is not my experience. It is not my experience for laity or clergy that the doctrines of the Church are optional.

Jon

 

[benhur]

"The typical Protestant church thus unconsciously reinvents the Catholic system that it consciously scorns. "–Jimmy Akin

Exactly. Then why say P’s have no central authority, leaders,or control of dogma, You can’t have it both ways. Otherwise it would seem one gets upset with the other just because they are “in” but just not with " us". A bit like the apostles complaining to Jesus of “others” /disciples who were not part of the "in’’ twelve.

It also is part of the makeup of “criticism”, that as you point the finger at others you have three fingers pointing at you. That goes both ways, P’s criticizing C’s and vice versa. It obfuscates the real matter of real differences and proper dialogue and discernment thereof.
I

 

[benhur]

But you see where the confusion lies, then, Jon.

What is not permitted today–the individual departing from what your church has determined–is exactly what it claimed to be able to do for itself against the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

How do you reconcile this?

Don’t forget the 11th century and the 4th and 3rd and maybe the 15th also . Of course what goes around comes around but what has that got to do with say ,is there succession after Peter, or did Mary really ascend, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Our churches both have problems and get this, both may have wrong dogma somewhere in our long list of doctrines. I suppose you could blame some of P’s problems it on some things we hold differently (SS, SF etc). But we could do the same , blame some Catholic problems on things specific to you ( tradition, priesthood). Is it fair ? Partly and partly not. Like there may be nothing wrong with SS or tradition or priesthood and they can be wrongly blamed. Bottom line, an individual lay person or a pope or a council are subject to the graces of God but are all quite capable of going beyond His wishes, on some things, some times.

As you say ben, “get this” – you can CLAIM that the Catholic Church has ‘wrong dogma’, but by what Authority do you come to this conclusion? Is it Private Revelation? Is it Personal Interpretation of Scripture? Is it based on simply your own opinion? Is it anything more substantial than what Luther used to refute/condemn/defy more than 4 dozen important established doctrines, all before he even was excommunicated?

That ‘Authority’ that Luther used was in fact nothing more than his Private Interpretation of Scripture. Lutheranism today condemns such individuality in regards to ‘judging’ doctrine.

If you disagree then please state specifically how.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

As Jimmy Akin states: "This was necessary as an answer to the Catholic question, “Who are you to overturn a historic Christian teaching which has already been settled by the Magisterium? You are not even a member of that body, much less the whole of it, and such doctrines can never change to begin with.”

Is that what they really asked themselves ? I think not for the most part, but it helps Akin’s “positioning” or framing the dialogue to his end. “Not even a member” ??? Most reformers were baptized Catholics, well educated and catechized, and some were clergy ! Vatican 2 finally recognized that "others’ ’ are indeed part, even members of the Body of Christ. So I doubt reformers thought as Akins suggests.

Furthermore, “such doctrines can never change” was also not on reformers minds. The CC showed to them much change in terms of evolving on some doctrinal matters. A simple look at scripture, early father writings and councils and their creeds bear this out ( and was much studied by reformers).

Akins-In the face of this question, the Reformers were driven to answer, "We do not need to be the whole of the Magisterium, or even individual members of it, for every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which, we admit, Christ intended his Church to have.”

I think Jon shows this to be false also. It was the basis, for an individual/church, for determining “truth” that was realigned (more towards scripture)