Which Church??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jubilarian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
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.”
Click to expand...
This sadly may be partly true. Partly because yes they indeed did function for a time as the church they came out of, even involving civil authorities to enforce spiritual matters. The unpartly might be that I am not sure they thought it was inherent of two classes of believers as the the CC epsouses, or the two priesthoods (or three). That is that the magisterium’s job is interpreting for others , instead of enforcing/teaching what the church as a whole believe, with no distinction of lay/ clergy receiving proper understanding by His graces.
 
JonNC said:
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
Click to expand...
First, did you read Akin’s article?

Second, without an infallible Magisterium, it doesn’t matter WHAT source you use; eventually, folks are going to screw it up.

Heretics always quote scripture, Jon. Always have, always will.
 
Randy_Carson said:
A two-legged stool is only slightly more stable than a one-legged stool.
Click to expand...
Yes. but a truth can stand on its own leg or two or three, as many wish to support it, but one leg can suffice. Sometimes the less that supports something the less things that can go wrong.
Protestants rejected Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church
Click to expand...
They did not reject Tradition or magisteriums only their relative function as a yardstick as to Sacred Scripture. As Akins points out early P’s were really acting quite Catholic with tradition and magisteriums/authority etc…
 
PRmerger said:
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.”
Click to expand...
My Dad is still a Methodist. He told me that one day, he told his pastor, “Its your job to tell me what to believe, and it’s my job to decide if I do.”

That means my dad is exercising private judgment of his pastor’s private judgment.

When you question most Protestants about this, they will defend their right to do this fiercely. But then if you ask them if they are infallible, they begin by talking about being led by the Spirit into all truth…until you point out that the denomination across the street teaches the exact opposite doctrine. The conversation usually ends with a wimper…something about “unity in essentials” and “all churches have some errors”, etc.

But you know that person secretly believes in his heart that his doctrine is without error.

And if he disagrees with his pastor, it’s only a matter of time before he starts church shopping.
 
PRmerger said:
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.”
Click to expand...
That’s why they send them to Bible College or Divinity School or Seminary. To learn their denomination’s official line. And they have heresy trials and disfellowship those who refuse to follow it.
 
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
What can I say? You are both wrong, and possibly for the same reasons.
 
benhur said:
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
Click to expand...
Ben-

Read the article. Akin answers you this way:

Because the Catholic Church is open about the role of the teaching authority in the Christian community, it has thought through the issue, has a much better conscious understanding of it, and so administers the role much better. The Catholic Magisterium, because it is aware that its decisions are authoritative and bind the consciences of believers so they will not be tossed to and fro by doctrines, is very cautious and careful when it speaks. It uses very precise language and makes very careful, narrow pronouncements on an issue.

By contrast, because they are exercising magisterial authority in a largely unconscious, unreflective manner, the Magisteriums in Protestant churches tend to be much less measured in their pronouncements, and pastors in Protestant churches often teach in broad brushstrokes, without careful reflection and without stating important qualifiers, and tell their people they must believe as revealed by God some interpretation which merely seemed like a good idea to the pastor.

PROTESTANT MAGISTERIUMS OUT OF CONTROL

This is especially problematic in less intellectual denominations where the pastors are not given an academic training that teaches them the importance of nuance and qualifiers in teaching. For example, the man under whose ministry I first became a Christian often spoke of how he had grown up in an Assembly of God church, which was one of twelve in that town which had split off of an original, root Assembly of God church in town. The splits had been over tiny matters that were presented as major doctrinal divides. One split was caused when people began teaching that it was a sin to drink coffee. Another was caused when a teaching arose that one should not wear a tie. A third arose over the issue of whether one should wear cuffs on one’s pants. In fact, the man’s father was the pastor of the “no tie” Assembly of God church in that town.
 
Randy_Carson said:
each Orthodox now exercises private judgment of the Church as it passes through history!
Click to expand...
Why not ? The spirit discerns all things and “we have the mind of Christ”. We do not simply follow orders or do we ? Follow, yes. Discern, yes. Lead others , yes.
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.
Click to expand...
It only undermines a patriarch from being “head” or "infallible’’ but still a leader capable by God’s graces
Thus, in denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”,
Click to expand...
Certainly not child like attitude but “adultish” in that if you don’t have it all you have nothing.

Yes you have the history right and like your enthusiasm for it. Your coloring within the lines can change the focus as to why the lines are there in the first place.
 
benhur said:
Why not ? The spirit discerns all things and “we have the mind of Christ”. We do not simply follow orders or do we ? Follow, yes. Discern, yes. Lead others , yes.
It only undermines a patriarch from being “head” or "infallible’’ but still a leader capable by God’s graces Certainly not child like attitude but “adultish” in that if you don’t have it all you have nothing.

Yes you have the history right and like your enthusiasm for it. Your coloring within the lines can change the focus as to why the lines are there in the first place.
Click to expand...
If you have not done so, read this brief article on the problem as discussed on OrthodoxWiki:

orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

Remember, these are Orthodox wrangling honestly with a problem they recognize!
 
Topper17 said:
Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

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
Click to expand...
Private , personal ? It can’t be very private if millions of others believe it and have believed it. Just like the 19th century Pope received private revelation that indeed Mary was Immaculate beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it could finally be declared as authoritatively binding. It was private to him, personal, but just like it was to millions of others during and before this , (except for its official ramifications).

By what authority do you accept the CC ? Is it a private matter, a personal matter somewhere in the chemistry that forms you and your opinion ?

Perhaps Jon can answer the Lutheran “problem”, for you may have something there. Maybe Luther did not think it private because he thought history and fathers and apostles were on “his” "side,. So not private but a personal conviction, yes. I would think any church would say we can not interpret differently than apostles or even the first church. We have the right to see it the apostles way for ourselves , as meat unto our bones, and not predigested food, by others, like milk.
 
benhur;12568006] There are pictures of similar buildings that happen to be for Catholic congregations. Forgot how to post them.
Click to expand...
So, what you are saying benhur is, “It’s not the **real estate **but the **Real Presence **that decides what a “CHURCH” is”, for as Christ Himself said,
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
Click to expand...
BTW: I mean the “Real Presence” in the usual sense, not as used by Roman Catholics to refer to trans-substantiation in the Eucharist.

Protector.
 
phil19034 said:
The majority of Protestants basically divorce the Mystical Body of Christ from the Physical Body of Christ (aka the Church).

To Catholics (and Orthodox) you simply cannot do this because we believe that the Church safe guards the Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition.

But since Protestants believe in Bible Only, they don’t think they need the Church to protect the Deposit of Faith because The Holy Spirit will do that. But then why do we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations today? In response to this fact, many Protestants believe that Christian Unity in regards to “denominations” is a “nice to have” but not a requirement and that the Bible is the only Deposit of Faith.

I recommend reading The Protestant’s Dilemma by Devon Rose (shop.catholic.com/books-1/apologetics/the-protestant-s-dilemma.html)

I also recommend the following by Dave Armstrong:
There are many other books too. But I think these are a good overview.

I hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...
It was interesting when the retired Pope Benedict XVI was perfect for the Congregation of the Faith, he had noticed that Protestants began to listen more to the understanding of the Church structure to be made of a service of Bishops, Priests and Deacons when they had discovered this same structure among the Orthodox Churches. It seems that more than one witness will always confer better the truth. Perhaps this is why God had conferred two witnesses to His Apostolic order, one in the West (Catholic) and the other in the East (the Eastern Churches).
 
Protector said:
So, what you are saying benhur is, “It’s not the **real estate **but the **Real Presence **that decides what a “CHURCH” is”, for as Christ Himself said,

BTW: I mean the “Real Presence” in the usual sense, not as used by Roman Catholics to refer to trans-substantiation in the Eucharist.

Protector.
Click to expand...
As A Catholic posted , the proof is in the pudding. Vat 2 admits there is the real presence (of Christ and His graces) in many of these 30,000 “other” churches. So why not participate in a non catholic church for there is salvation there ? They say fullness of truth may not be there, but again the pudding. I dare say that the pudding of living victoriously in Christ fully can be found as much and even more in these other churches than some Catholic churches. Best for best does not show any differences either. Fullness in Christ is not denominational though some are better at it than others, as are some congregations, as are some individuals.
 
Randy_Carson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Randy, thank you . Commented on what was posted. Went to his article lastly and only read small portion. It is late but I can’t get past the first of his suppositions ( sin of garden and truth coming from without- which it does but does not do away with personal divine revelation)-jumped all the way there to begin reading. Much rebuttal comes to mind but perhaps another time, line by line, thought for thought-yikes- could be done.
 
Hi Jon,
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
With all due respect Jon, that is not the whole story. You say that it has ‘always’ been the case that within Lutheranism the Church determines doctrine.” In fact, Martin Luther defied the Church and Her Doctrines and he did so from his personal interpretation of Scripture. In this he defied one of the most important rules of Lutheranism, and ironically, he did it in order to establish Lutheranism.

It seems rather silly to say that without Luther there would be no Lutheranism. When we see Luther breaking an important rule of Lutheranism to establish Lutheranism, we can only wonder whether what he founded is the eyes of Lutheranism.
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Personally, to me, it doesn’t seem like the whole thing about how Lutherans follow the doctrines of theichurch and are not allowed to establish doctrine independently bears out very well in the real world not hundreds of competing and doctrinally conflicting communions. That would not be possible if Lutherans were actually looking to the Church for their doctrines rather than to themselves. The fact of all of those conflicting Lutheran denominations is proof that Lutherans DO take doctrinal matters into their hands, defying the church, the same way that Luther did. If Lutherans really followed the rule to allow the church to teach doctrine, there would still be only one Lutheran denomination. The fact that Luther rebelled doctrinally against the Catholic Church and that many Lutherans rebelled against him

Given that this is simply not allowed by the Lutheran Church, it would appear that Luther’s doctrinally independent move, breaking the rule of the Lutheran Church, would invalidate the modern Lutheran church,

God Bless You Jon, Topper
 
phil19034 said:
The number of 30,000 (which I just heard is now closer to 35,000) is pretty accurate because every single “non-denominational” church is counted as it’s own denomination. They are a denomination of one community.

Of course if you count up the number of communions, groups, etc, there are far less. But it’s true that the number of different “authorities” has exploded.

Look how many Baptist denominations exist… Southern Baptist, Liberty Baptist, American Baptist, etc.

This list has over 300 Baptist denominations alone on it, and I’m sure this list isn’t complete:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations
Click to expand...
Why divide things up between Catholics and everyone else? Isn’t the Catholic Church just one Christian denomination out of 30,000 denominations, each with its own list of essential doctrines? Even Catholics have several different denominations (just like the Baptists). There is the Roman Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top