Who's on First?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Judas_Thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AbideWithMe said:
Then, Judas, you might try reading it without any thought of it being a bratty tantrum, but instead, if it doesn’t make sense to you, totally reserve judgment until someone can clarify the meaning for you.
Click to expand...
You already confirmed it before I even said anything:
Originally Posted by Contarini forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The most conservative "classic Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) would argue that when the Council of Trent rejected Protestantism, then and only then did the “Roman” Church cease to be a true Christian Church.
Click to expand...
Basic Argument in Bits:

  • Council of Trent,
  • Rejects Protestantism,
  • Suddenly Catholic Church No More “*a *True Christian Church”.
How else is that kind of judgement supposed to be seen as?
 
JonNC said:
Again, a viewing Protestantism as a single monolith. This has never been the case, not from the earliest time. Reformed Christians, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Anglicans, all started out as different, independent groups.

Surprise. Different groups have different teachings.

Not sure any true Lutherans do not do this. The confessions are clear on the creeds.

Again, differing groups differ.

ditto.

I like Jimmy Akin, and I don’t mean to be snarky, but the same issues apply to communions that are not typically described as protestant. PNCC, Old Catholics, OO, EO, and CC all have different viewpoints, yet claim Sacred Tradition.

The sad nature of division is that different groups have different views and beliefs.

Jon
Click to expand...
The groups which you mentioned above are if I’m not mistaken in schism with the Church, the same cannot be said of Protestantism.
 
So, assuming everything written to this point is correct and true, don’t we have multiple interpretations truths?

Some of us believe (and teach) in infant baptism some of us do not. Some of us believe (and teach) in…some do not…

How else can all of Christianity be viewed but having multiple interpretations of truths?

Peace to all!!!
 
AbideWithMe said:
Okay, so is it fair to say that you decided, from your own research, that mechanical apostolic succession was the only necessary qualifier for the title “One True Church”?
Click to expand...
Firstly, I don’t know what “mechanical apostolic succession” means. Could you please clarify?

And I didn’t say it was the “only necessary qualifier”.

But I would like to ask if you can trace your church all the way back to the Apostles. If so, could you please provide your reference?
 
Contarini said:
No. This is one of the most common Catholic mistakes in responding to Protestantism. That isn’t a position most Protestants would hold. There are a bunch of different Protestant positions on this, but the basic point you need to understand is that Protestants don’t assume that if the Church gets stuff wrong, therefore it’s not the true Church any more.

The classic Protestant view, insofar as there is one, is that the Church gradually admitted more and more error and corruption as time went on, but that didn’t mean there was no true Church. The most conservative "classic Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) would argue that when the Council of Trent rejected Protestantism, then and only then did the “Roman” Church cease to be a true Christian Church.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thanks, Edwin. Most protestants don’t seem to want to explain their reasoning on this issue, or can’t.

Now, let’s explore that reasoning further. You say “the Church gradually admitted more and more error and corruption as time went on, but that didn’t mean there was no true Church.”

Can you explain how, then, the Church that Jesus started, and vowed to be with until the end of the age, the very “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth,” could have “admitted more and more error and corruption”?

The way I see it, you can’t believe this and still believe in Jesus.
 
Kliska said:
History, logic, and reason are a part of how we form our theology. It isn’t formed in a vacuum. Further, history, logic and reason play a large role in why I’m a protestant… so… yeah.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, Kliska.

Some of your theology is not historical, nor is it logical and reasonable.

To wit: your (I respectfully say rather peculiar) belief that prayers of petition must only be done in private and that we ought not pray communally for others, but only in private.

Can you show in history where Christians professed this particular interpretation of Matthew 6:6?

And does it seem logical that we, as the Body of Christ, worship together in a church but ignore one another’s intentions when we are together?

Why in the world would God command that our prayers of petition be done only in private?

That’ doesn’t sound logical or reasonable to me.
I guess my point, and what I believe others are saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe anyone would disagree with this. 🤷
 
AbideWithMe said:
I’m not speaking for Jon, but as for myself, I didn’t read his post, taken together with Kliska’s, to be saying that mere “resonating” was the important thing to the CC.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, I just happened to be listening to a Catholic Answers podcast with Jimmy Akin (here: catholic.com/radio/shows/open-forum-10246).

At about minute 14 he affirms my point re: the paradigm the Church supports for joining her: seek Truth, and then conform your views to it.
 
Kliska said:
Thank you for sharing your experience!. My point is that you have found something that resonated with you, and continues to resonate with something in you that you hold “true.” It is a bit judgmental in general (not you) for people to judge someone for trying to seek out a church that they believe is speaking true. I’ve heard many converts to the RCC say that is the way it was for them, so why should protestants be judged for doing the same thing that have lead many to the RCC?
Click to expand...
Just to add to my previous posts on this:

No one is arguing against seeking out a church that they believe is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are saying all of us should do.

But the paradigm is NOT: where is the church that teaches doctrines A, B and C, and practices 1, 2 and 3 because that is what I believe*. And God, of course, believes everything I believe. It reeks of the insane command, “Listen, God, for your servant is speaking!” :o

Rather it is: which church teaches what God said? And I must join that church! And when that church says doctrine A, B and C and practices 1, 2 and 3, even though I may not agree, I will conform my views to God’s.

As Cardinal Newman famously said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

*Sadly, there are thousands and thousands of Catholics who have done this–left the Church because they want to divorce and re-marry. Suddenly they think, “God wouldn’t care if I divorce and re-marry! Where’s a church that teaches this?” :eek:
 
Since it seems to me that to be a Protestant means that one is protesting the Church. But I wonder if Protestants fully understand completely what it is that they are protesting against the Catholic Church. I can understand the reason in which Luther did and some of the other Reformers thought as the reason they protested against the Catholic Church, but in this day and age with so many different Protestant denomonations its rather difficult to know exactly what it is that it being protested. Any clues? thanks.
 
JonNC said:
I can’t command others to our definition anymore than Rome can command other communions accept papal supremacy.

Jon
Click to expand...
Are there other definitions of papal supremacy going around Christian schools of thought? :confused:
 
JonNC said:
Individual Lutheran’s refusal to accept the doctrines of the Lutheran Confessions do not change the truth of scripture and its reflection in said confessions. There are even groups of Lutherans that want to ordain women. That doesn’t change the Lutheran teaching that only men can be ordained. There are Lutherans, perhaps even Lutheran synods, that want to perform same sex marriages. That doesn’t change the fact that God established marriage to be one man and one woman, and that Lutheran teaching is the same.
Click to expand...
👍
Within my synod, the LCMS, there is certainly a body that “speaks for the Church”.
Click to expand...
If a Lutheran reads the Scriptures and comes to a differing doctrine than what is professed by your confessions, what does this mean for this Lutheran?
And there’s the issue, in short: you want to group all of “protestantism” together and say, “see, there is no one body that speaks for them”.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true.
And my point is it makes no sense to expect that to be the case, anymore than to expect one body to speak for EO, OO, PNCC, CC combined.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. But if you want to know what the CC teaches, you can simply go to our Catechism. To the degree that any Catholic has divorced herself from these teachings is the degree to which she is not in communion with the CC. So, one cannot point to disagreements among Catholics and say, “See! You guys don’t even agree about contraception!”

An individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium.
 
Kliska said:
That wasn’t my point, but you know that.
Click to expand...
It did appear that you were saying that, when you said this (in bold):
Kliska said:
It becomes less of an issue when we believe that all Christians are a part of the body of Christ. I can go to a Lutheran church, a Roman catholic church, a Baptist church, a Methodist church, a Pentecostal church, etc… and be reasonably sure I’m with at least some brothers and sisters.

I may be going to Midnight mass this Christmas eve to visit one of the parishes with friends, I would imagine if I went there and believed they taught the gospel I agree with and believed what they said to be true, you’d have no problem with that. 🤷
Click to expand...
 
SteveVH said:
Our job is not to find a “church” that complies with our understanding. It is, rather, to conform our lives to the truth, even if that truth contradicts our understanding.
Click to expand...
Yeah. What SteveVH said. 🙂
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Actually there was a New Testament. The letters of the New Testament were written and circulating from the early second century.

And the books of the NT were heavily quoted by the fathers from the early second century.
Click to expand...
Yeah…and? The Shepherd of Hermas was quoted, so why isn’t in the Bible? St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. I can go on and on. Still does not change the fact hundreds of letters existed,hence no canonized Bible existed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top