Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[guanophore]

.

The apostolic faith does not include the idea of apostolic succession and infallibility.

Then how do you account for the fact that those who embrace the apostolic faith have embraced these concepts continually for 2000 years and trace them back to the NT and the Early writing sof the Churrch?

 A matter of definition, friend.  AS relates to communicating truth, not the laying on of hands by one unbeliever on another.

It sounds like you have judged each and every Bishop’s soul from the time of the Apostles until the present day, and determined that they are “unbelievers”. The hubris is astounding. Fortunately, the Gifts of God are not so constrained by the failings of humankind, and He is able to preserve what He has created despite our shortcomings.

 Nice to know. :rolleyes:

seriously, Tomi, all of your posts have demonstrated this “either/or” reasoning that is really inconsistent with the Christian faith. You gave another example above. “Peter is not the Rock, his statement of faith was”. Where it is clear from Scripture that Jesus is literally renaming Simon to Peter (rock) and that there are actually several rocks involved.

“You however, do not”. Cheap shot.

Just a statement of the facts, Tomi. I just quoted above your denial of the office of the Bishop as described in the NT. You are not starting to have cause to feel shame, are you, over your denial of the Apostolic faith?

 Please try to maintain your usual high standard of posting.

Are we to use your standard of “high” on the respectfulness of postings:

Well…You are seeing through your Rome-colored glasses, with everything as the Church has instructed you, when has bothered to.

The Catholic church in its corruption…

From a presbyterian viewpoint the whole office of bishop, and therefore anything descending from it, is a corruption of the church,…

How is it a “cheap shot” for me to reference what you have already instructed me that you believe?

Right. I try to start a thread on reconciliation

Take a look at how much blame around here is placed on Luther (and Calvin, but usually he is regarded as a sideshow) for the Reformation, and almost NONE on Catholic faults.

I find it ironic that you would put this in a reply to me, of all people.

Tomi, have you ever considered following the commandment of Jesus to forgive, 70 x 7, and to cease holding resentments against others for faults that were committed centuries ago? Does that not hanging on to these “faults” strike you as an unchristian position?

I will credit a few people for posting in a more realistic fashion on this issue. There are a LOT of posters on this forum who come here to simply ventilate against Protestants.

That is because we keep getting banned from CARM for being Catholic.

My question is, where do we go from here? The response has been that I am at fault. Whether for asking or being I am not sure, but I am at fault.

It seems clear to me that you are not going anywhere “from here”. You appear to need to hold on to your truncated conception of “church” and to your resentments and mischaracterizations of Catholicism to bolster your own faith. If you were to “go from here” you would compromise your Presbyterian faith, which relies upon all these factors to supoort itself.

 

[PRmerger]

GKC,

Let’s reverse this.

Imagine an early Church that was protestant…

In that…the apostolic belief, taught, promulgated and protected by the Church, was that Christ was speaking symbolically. “Eat my body, Drink my blood” was simply not to be taken literally (despite the crowds leaving Jesus and Jesus not correcting them and despite the words of scripture)

Then,

In the 9th century, a couple of dissenters argue that Jesus was being literal! But the Church guided to all truth as promised by Christ, maintains that no, Christ was being figurative. This has been the faith from the beginning.

Then

In the 16th century, a break from the apostolic faith occurs: those Catholics believe after 1,600 years that the Written Word of God should be taken, literally. That the Deposit of Faith has been wrong all along, and that the heretics were right in the 9th century (and a few others through time as well).

Can you imagine how protestants would criticize Catholics for breaking from the apostolic faith after more than 1,600 years?

If one was going to eat some popcorn while pondering something, there are few subjects more worthy of thought.

PnP

Indeed.

And can you imagine how Protestants would criticize Catholics for breaking from the apostolic faith and paving the way for tens of thousands of denominations which have also broken away from their original church?

Incidentally, I have started taking pictures on my daily excursions of different cornerfront churches.

Here is one denomination unto itself–answering to no one save the pastor who started this particular denomination.

Imagine the thousands and thousands of these churches along the highways and towns of the US…

This is but one that I’ve encountered in the past month…

 

[PRmerger]

He has been pleased to speak in an authoritative way through His apostles and prophets

Let’s take this one.

When the apostles and prophets spoke, were they infallible?

 

[Tomyris]

It seems clear to me that you are not going anywhere “from here”. You appear to need to hold on to your truncated conception of “church” and to your resentments and mischaracterizations of Catholicism to bolster your own faith. If you were to “go from here” you would compromise your Presbyterian faith, which relies upon all these factors to supoort itself.

Apparently I have not made it clear, or possibly even stated it on a post that you have seen, that God has used the Catholic Church and its current structure for a great deal of good in the world. There have been and are many good and pious lay Catholics, priests, religious, and bishops and popes. God will use us for His purposes, and He has used the Catholic Church for His purposes, and does use the Catholic Church for His purposes.

Has Christ left the Catholic Church? No. Has the Holy Spirit left the Catholic Church? No. Somehow I have convinced you that I believe in “the Gap”, despite numerous postings on a thread you referenced where I made it clear I did not. I also wonder if you have read following posts I made to some of the ones you are now responding to with some heat, in which I modified or mitigated what I had said, or if you just end-jumped and posted without reading. As you now seem to be working backwards in the thread and getting more and more angry and strident, I really don’t see the purpose in what you are doing.

I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for much in Catholicism. If they had not thoroughly screwed up RCIA I would probably be Catholic now, despite the enormous tensions that was bringing about with some people in my life.

I really don’t know what you hope to gain by trying to paint me as an anti-Catholic. I am not. I could introduce you to some. I get labeled as too pro-Catholic by some. Here I seem to be an anti-Catholic. What’s a girl to do?

This thread, really, started off as “Can we move on, and how are we going to do it?” I see a Catholic Church today that Presbyterians probably would not have had a separation from if it had been like this back then. That is a big OOPS in my book.

One thing I do appreciate about your posting is that I think you are really trying to help and showing me some things where you think I am wrong. These things are issues that someday Presbyterians and Catholics will have to work through together, something like what the Lutherans and Catholics have worked on in the Joint Declaration. But we are a lot further apart, and that is a shame.

I am sorry if I have been overly polemic in my posts. I tend to respond in kind. I really don’t want to fight with you.

 

[Tomyris]

Let’s take this one.

When the apostles and prophets spoke, were they infallible?

Easy:

When they wrote Scripture, yes.

When they said, “Please pass the salt,” no.

Murkier:

When they exercised church discipline over an individual Christian If it was in accordance with Scripture, they were following Scripture, so it was not new revelation. If they made a mistake exercising church discipline, it was just like with any other authority. They were not bullet-proof in their daily walks. We have a few of Peter’s sermons in Acts of the many he must have preached, but only a few were deemed by the Holy Spirit to be what He wanted Luke to include.

When they preached, and they did, and they said, ‘not I, but the Lord, says this,’ you have a complicated scenario. Were they necessarily right about who was speaking? No. Does that mean it was not worth heeding? No. Even if they were the one speaking, and the Lord wasn’t particularly, it was worth listening to.

Wouldn’t it be neat to hear Peter tell of his walking on water? Or John, how he heard the call? Or Zacchaeus, how He told him to come out of the tree?

 

[Porknpie]

It seems clear to me that you are not going anywhere “from here”. You appear to need to hold on to your truncated conception of “church” and to your resentments and mischaracterizations of Catholicism to bolster your own faith. If you were to “go from here” you would compromise your Presbyterian faith, which relies upon all these factors to supoort itself.

I’ve been friends with a Presbyterian minister now for over forty years. A wonderful man. I’ve never heard him mischaracterize Catholicism nor hold contempt for the Church. I only say this to point out that Presbyterians, like Catholics, come in different shapes, sizes and prejudices.

PnP

 

[guanophore]

 Apparently I have not made it clear, or possibly even stated it on a post that you have seen, that God has used the Catholic Church and its current structure for a great deal of good in the world.

I must have missed that post, somewhere amidst the accusations and detractions.

Somehow I have convinced you that I believe in “the Gap”, despite numerous postings on a thread you referenced where I made it clear I did not.

Yes. Maybe it had something to do with the content of your posts?

The CC was built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The Apostles transmitted their authority to their successors, the Bishops.

What you do not understand is the going-back to the beginning business after the bishops and popes threw away any sort of 'Sacred Tradition' and that **the Catholic Church**, in Reformed eyes, is the one that** departed, slowly, from the Catholic faith.  **

Sounds like a gap to me!

From a presbyterian viewpoint the whole office of bishop, and therefore anything descending from it, is a corruption of the church.

Sounds like a departure to me!

We have not touched on the absence of teaching authority in the Catholic Church in the late medieval era, and the prevalence of multitudinous views that the Magisterium was silent on. People did not know where the teaching authority lay, whether with the monastarys, the universities, or where. Some of this was because of the aftereffects of the time of the pope and anti-pope and the papal concern for earthly power, but another whole effect was the real abandonment of any sort of guidance of the church in terms of teaching.

Comments? I would dearly love to hear your approach to ankle and calf tattoos in coordination with capris-length leggings. Or maybe not. And, of course, their bearing on the Reformation.

 God took away Israel and Judah because of their sins, and he took away the Levitical priesthood.  Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Why do you think God would spare the papacy?

I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for much in Catholicism.

That certainly does shine through in posts like this one!

Well…You are seeing through your Rome-colored glasses, with everything as the Church has instructed you, when has bothered to.

If they had not thoroughly screwed up RCIA I would probably be Catholic now, despite the enormous tensions that was bringing about with some people in my life.

I have been privy to some absymal experiences in RCIA myself, so I can appreciate the screw ups. On the other hand, it is clear from your posts that your issues with CC began long before RCIA was ever started, and continue to exist quite outside of it.

RCIA will not help anyone to come to forgiveness, or to stop people from holding 500 year old grudges. RCIA can’t make you accept what is in scripture, either.

I really don't know what you hope to gain by trying to paint me as an anti-Catholic. I am not. I could introduce you to some. I get labeled as too pro-Catholic by some. :shrug: Here I seem to be an anti-Catholic. :shrug: What's a girl to do?

I was just about to ask you what your purpose might be in coming to a Catholic site, and using threads paid for by us to insult the Catholic faith.

No one can know who you really are, all we can know of you is what you post here. For all I know, you are just role playing here, and you forget to stay in the role you have chosen at times to entertain yourself.

This thread, really, started off as “Can we move on, and how are we going to do it?” I see a Catholic Church today that Presbyterians probably would not have had a separation from if it had been like this back then. That is a big OOPS in my book.

It has become abundantly clear in all your posts why you are unable to “move on” from the Reformation. It seems you have answered your original post!

These things are issues that someday Presbyterians and Catholics will have to work through together, something like what the Lutherans and Catholics have worked on in the Joint Declaration.  But we are a lot further apart, and that is a shame.

I think there is more shame in feeding the unforgiveness that is 500 years old. As long as that happens, reconciliation will be elusive.

I really don’t want to fight with you.

I didn’t take it personally. It seems clear that your fight is with the Catholic faith, which you understand little, and about which you have been deceived.

I actually came here after a long break from the board looking for you. I love a heated dialogue with a Reformed Presbyterian.

 

[Porknpie]

I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for much in Catholicism. If they had not thoroughly screwed up RCIA I would probably be Catholic now, despite the enormous tensions that was bringing about with some people in my life.

I would share that my wife, Pie, went through RCIA for 8 months then she met the Bishop. He asked her a question, that made her question, her going through with her journey of becoming Catholic (two weeks later). She came home that day and said that she wasn’t ready to do so. In affect, the Bishop without intending to, blew it that day. Even our RCIA Director agreed. But the Holy Spirit prevailed and she re-entered RCIA while we were living in a different state a couple of years later. I should add that at that original Easter Vigil, over twenty catechumens entered the Church…Pie being the lone exception.

We moved back to that original town and have remained there since. It’s been twenty plus years since RCIA #1. My wife’s story was told repeatedly over the years to new Catechumens, telling them that there is never any pressure to join the Church, up until, you enter the Church at the Easter Vigil Mass.

The Holy Spirit can be very persistent. If a well catechized, German, raised in a Lutheran can find their way to the Catholic Church … then so can anyone else.

So I have to ask Tomyris, what happened at RCIA?

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

Easy:

When they wrote Scripture, yes.

Excellent.

So step #1 is accomplished: we are agreed that it is possible for men to be infallible. And not only is it possible…but it actually happened…
to multiple people…
over multiple periods of time.

This is a great point of agreement we can now share: men have been infallible.

Now for step #2…after you confirm our agreement.

 

[Tomyris]

Excellent.

So step #1 is accomplished: we are agreed that it is possible for men to be infallible. And not only is it possible…but it actually happened…
to multiple people…
over multiple periods of time.

This is a great point of agreement we can now share: men have been infallible.

Now for step #2…after you confirm our agreement.

You are stuck on that word. Sigh. No, men have NOT been infallible. God has used men to speak infallibly. BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[PRmerger]

You are stuck on that word. Sigh. No, men have NOT been infallible. God has used men to speak infallibly. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Big difference?

Not really.

In fact, I wouldn’t have a problem with saying, then, that the Catholic Church professes that God has used men to speak infallibly.

We are then agreed on this.

And now we go to the next step.

Where do you get the idea that God used men to speak infallibly (multiple men, over multiple periods of time), but then at a certain point this charism stopped?

Now, the CC does proclaim that God did stop using men to write the inspired revelation, (and we know this from Tradition, NOT from Scripture, BTW, so when you agree that there will be no further public revelation, that is because you are giving tacit submission to the teachings of Sacred Tradition)…

but there is NOTHING in Scripture which declares that God does not continue to use the Holy Spirit to assist men in protecting His Word, and doing so (since it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)…INFALLIBLY.

Where is your objection to the above?

 

[guanophore]

I’ve been friends with a Presbyterian minister now for over forty years. A wonderful man. I’ve never heard him mischaracterize Catholicism nor hold contempt for the Church. I only say this to point out that Presbyterians, like Catholics, come in different shapes, sizes and prejudices.

PnP

Indeed, which is why I so enjoy the dialogue. I learn a great deal every time.

I wish more Catholics were so familiar with their Scriptures and teachings of the Church.

 

[Porknpie]

You are stuck on that word. Sigh. No, men have NOT been infallible. God has used men to speak infallibly. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Tomyris,

You already said that men have been infallible “when they wrote scripture.”

Therefore, men have been infallible, not at all times, but when they wrote scripture (your words)

This is VERY Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

  Easy:

When they wrote Scripture, yes.

When they said, “Please pass the salt,” no.

Then I guess we can take infallibility off the “list”? We are in agreement that, when God is working through humans to produce an inspired and inerrant result, the gift of infallibility is at work?

And we can agree that this gift is only at work to preserve the Work of God? i.e., it is not related to impeccability?

Murkier:

When they exercised church discipline over an individual Christian If it was in accordance with Scripture, they were following Scripture, so it was not new revelation.

I am not so shure how that is “murky”. Catholics have never claimed that any disciplines are infallible or that they are some “new revelation”. , but it does seem clear to me that this account of Church discipline is infallible:

Acts 5:9-11
9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

(Interesting this happened with Peter presiding).

 If they made a mistake exercising church discipline, it was just like with any other authority. They were not bullet-proof in their daily walks.  We have a few of Peter's sermons in Acts of the many he must have preached, but only a few were deemed by the Holy Spirit to be what He wanted Luke to include.

Yes, which does not make those not included uninspired.

Let me get this right. When the inspired, inerrant Scriptures indicate “not I, but the Lord”, you don’t think this is necessarily the case?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tomyris]

Big difference?

Not really.

In fact, I wouldn’t have a problem with saying, then, that the Catholic Church professes that God has used men to speak infallibly.

We are then agreed on this.

And now we go to the next step.

Where do you get the idea that God used men to speak infallibly (multiple men, over multiple periods of time), but then at a certain point this charism stopped?

Now, the CC does proclaim that God did stop using men to write the inspired revelation, (and we know this from Tradition, NOT from Scripture, BTW, so when you agree that there will be no further public revelation, that is because you are giving tacit submission to the teachings of Sacred Tradition)…

but there is NOTHING in Scripture which declares that God does not continue to use the Holy Spirit to assist men in protecting His Word, and doing so (since it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)…INFALLIBLY.

Where is your objection to the above?

For one thing, it is an argument from silence. For another, it indicates that public revelation continues. For a third, you may be ignoring the last verses of the book of Revelation, with its warnings about additions and subtractions, and the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ - we draw the idea of the closure of public revelation from Scripture, not from any other source.

I think God can, and does, speak to people today. But it is not on the same level as the canon. The man I know who has the most directly accurate prophetic gifting insists the gift is no longer in effect. But his ‘impressions of what God is saying’ are really, really worth listening to. And those are subject to review.

You are wanting to draw me to a position where I will say Councils have the same authority as the Scriptures, along with papal infallible decrees, and to echo Guanophore’s line that reasoned conclusions have the same force as the source, which I also disagree with.

 

[PRmerger]

For one thing, it is an argument from silence.

What is an argument from silence?

For another, it indicates that public revelation continues.

Ah, so here’s something you can be corrected on.

It appears that your objection to the charism of infallibility is that you believe it “indicates that public revelation continues.”

It does not.

The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture alone is the inspired word of God, where “inspired” adverts to the Holy Spirit guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way God wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also a channel of the word of God, does not come to us as theopneustos.

Theologians talk about sacred Tradition and the Magisterium as being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit.

But Scripture has a primacy in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

So, no, not public revelation continuing when one acknowledges the charism of infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

For one thing, it is an argument from silence.

It is not, Tomi. Your refusal to accept the infallbile work of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Teaching fo teh Apostles in the Church does not make it “silent” for anyone but you.

For another, it indicates that public revelation continues.

No, the HS leads us within the context of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

 For a third, you may be ignoring the last verses of the book of Revelation, with its warnings about additions and subtractions,

No. We do not admit any new scriptures. But those verses were written with regard to the book of Revelation, about 300 years before the NT ws canonized. In fact, that book was under great dispute (along with Hebrews) about whether it should be included.
It was sacred tradition that helped it to be part of the canon.

and the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ - we draw the idea of the closure of public revelation from Scripture, not from any other source.

I disagree, but it is not worth arguing this point.

I think God can, and does, speak to people today. But it is not on the same level as the canon.  The man I know who has the most directly accurate prophetic gifting insists the gift is no longer in effect. But his 'impressions of what God is saying' are really, really worth listening to. And those are subject to review.

The gift of prophesy is different than the gift of infalliblity.

Do all Presbyterians deny the charisms?

You are wanting to draw me to a position where I will say Councils have the same authority as the Scriptures, along with papal infallible decrees, and to echo Guanophore’s line that reasoned conclusions have the same force as the source, which I also disagree with.

LOL. You busted PR!

Your problem then begins with the first council in Jerusalem. If this is not an infallibe council, then the Word of God has given us an improper model of how it is to work.

Acts 15:27-28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us

If the councils do not have that level of authority, then neither can your Scripture, or the bulk of what you believe as a Christian, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, or even worshipping on Sundays.

 

[Porknpie]

For a third, you may be ignoring the last verses of the book of Revelation, with its warnings about additions and subtractions,

OK, and a great reason to have a bible with all 73 books. This is very confusing to me below, my paraphrase of what I believe you to believe:

• God infallibly has men write scripture, inerrantly
• But God does not lead them infallibly to determine what books are scripture, least not for 1,500 years.

and the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ - we draw the idea of the closure of public revelation from Scripture, not from any other source.

Where in scripture does it state that public revelation ended with the last apostle? Or do you not believe this?

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

For a third, you may be ignoring the last verses of the book of Revelation, with its warnings about additions and subtractions,

Interesting.

If you truly believe this, then you must discount the entirety of the NT, yes?

Or, at least, all the other books of the NT, save for Revelation, which states that nothing should be added to *that *book.

and the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ -

Then you must discount the epistles of Paul and Peter?

You are wanting to draw me to a position where I will say Councils have the same authority as the Scriptures, along with papal infallible decrees, and to echo Guanophore’s line that reasoned conclusions have the same force as the source, which I also disagree with.

Scripture has a primacy because it is the only inspired word of God, which has God as its primary author

That is Catholic teaching,

which, I believe, you were unaware of until now.

 

[spina1953]

One of the Problems concerning Scripture Its meaning and what it says is that so many seem to think that anyone just interpret it and gain from it with total understanding. Its great that we have the OT and NT to help us see God’s Word, That being said, First, the Books of the OT, the writers did not think themselves as inspired nor did they think they were writing Holy Scripture, they wrote in order to teach people in their communities what they understood as truths. Now while on earth Jesus Himself never, so far as we know, wrote a line of Scripture; certainly none that has been preserved. Jesus never told His Apostles to write anything, Jesus did not command them to commit to writing what He had delivered to them, but He said, “Go and teach all nations,” “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” H" he that hears you hears Me." What Jesus commanded and meant them to do was precisely what he had done Himself; deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice, convince, persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face to living men and women; not entrust their message to a book which might perish and be destroyed and be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but adopt the more safe and natural way of presenting the truth to them by word of mouth and training others to do the same after they themselves were gone and so, by a living tradition, preserving and handling down the Word of God, as they had received it to all generations

Only five of the Apostles wrote down anything at all that has been preserved to us. The Apostles never thought of writing the NT. The books of the NT were produced and called forth by special circumstances that arose, were written to meet particular demands and emergencies. Nothing was further from the minds of the Apostles and Evangelists than the idea of composing works which should be collected and formed into one volume and so constitute the Holy Book of the Christians. One can imagine Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his Epistles, and Peter’s and John’s and the others would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christians, to be placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them.

Since the time of the Reformation, when the reformer decided to break away from the CC, refusing the CC authority to teach, they had no authority, so they made the Bible the sole authority, and each reformer and those that came after them to interpret the Scripture as they saw fit and if one decided that what ever was interpreted was not correct in their mind well they just interpreted it to mean whatever they wanted it to mean and to say whatever they wanted to mean.

This is why the fuss about the Reformation really comes about Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and say what it means and says. Who decides what is doctrine and what is not, the interpreter of course which means the one interpreting may not really understand what is being said and what it means. In our day and age we see that there are so many different ways to interpret Scripture in that all one needs to do is look into the yellow pages and see all the churches claiming to be Bible based, or look at all the street corners and see the different churches saying that they are bible based, yet are different from the other churches claiming that they have the truth as though the other churches don’t have the truth. In the end all it really does is confuse people into believing whatever a preacher of that church says it is.