Why do non-Catholics scoff at the word "religion"

[stewstew03]

No, it’s not actually forbidden. Protestants may believe in the IC; Catholicism says all Christians must believe in the IC as part of the Gospel.

Please, please don’t derail this thread.

Citing an example to support an argument is not the same as lifting up that example as a topic for debate. (In other words, she’s not derailing the thread).

 

[AbideWithMe]

Citing an example to support an argument is not the same as lifting up that example as a topic for debate. (In other words, she’s not derailing the thread).

Stewstew, you’re right, and I should have been clearer. I tacked on the last part to refer to the general direction of PRMerger’s posts being about SS (which is not what the OP inquired about, and which, if followed will derail the thread), not just about the status of belief in the IC among SS users.

 

[stewstew03]

PRMerger,

The Scriptures are not just another book. They are the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit has to be factored in when people are trying to understand Scripture. The Holy Spirit can lead people into truth.

I frankly believe that when a person asks God to help them understand the Scriptures, God will answer, “Yes.” It may not happen that very day and moment. There are people who read the Scriptures and for years, come to incorrect conclusions about what they are reading.

But the Holy Spirit will not allow them to be led astray forever, IF they are truly desirous of righteousness. The Beatitude states, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.”

My husband and I love that verse because we humbly think that it is a description of our conversion to Catholicism. We were enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants for the first 47 years of our lives. But we truly HUNGERED for righteousness, and God eventually answered our prayer and led us to the Catholic Church, mainly through the Bible! Our study of the Bible over the decades made it obvious to us that the Catholic Church is the church most closely-aligned with the Scriptures. If we hadn’t been studying the Scriptures all those years while we were Protestants, we wouldn’t have recognized truth when we finally attended Mass.

Remember always that there are plenty of converts to Catholicism who came to recognize the validity of Catholicism* primarily through study of the Scriptures*.

And please be careful not to underestimate the scholarship of Protestants. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes Catholics make and then they get nailed when they finally do meet up with a high-intellectual who is a faithful Protestant.

Even if many of us (Protestants and ex-Protestants) here on CAF (or in your real life outside of the computer!) are not highly-educated in the fine details of Protestant systematic theology, there are Protestants who ARE educated far beyond the basic education that most Protestants have acquired through their own personal study.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the Protestants apologists that argue in public debate against some of our fine Catholic apologists are not the “intellectuals” of Protestantism.

Not to insult all the Protestants who come to CAF, but the high intellects of Protestantism don’t come to online sites or visit apologetics centers. They don’t write the kind of popular books that most Protestants-on-the-street read over lunch. And they don’t get “booked” to appear in media-broadcasted debates.

These Protestant intellectuals are sequestered in universities, dissecting the writings of the Church fathers, and finding plenty of reasons in those writings to remain Protestant. I wish that some of them WOULD debate Catholics so that Catholics could realize the scholarship behind Protestantism.

Nice post, Cat. But with all due respect, this comes across as finger-wagging, rather than actually responding to a particular point that PR has made.

Unless I missed it, I don’t think PR said anything about the intellectual vigor of Protestants, or their ability to find Truth.

 

[Cat]

Nice post, Cat. But with all due respect, this comes across as finger-wagging, rather than actually responding to a particular point that PR has made.

Unless I missed it, I don’t think PR said anything about the intellectual vigor of Protestants, or their ability to find Truth.

Post #55 is what prompted my cautionary note.

Here’s my take on “debate”–I try to assume, with great humility, that there is someone who can refute everything I say and believe in. Even if the person that I am talking with is not that person, I try to realize that somewhere that person is out there waiting for me. Bwoo ha ha.

We ought never to believe that we have everything all sewn up neatly, because that’s when the “seam ripper” will tear us apart and render us useless.

We need to prepare ourselves to continue a debate for as long as it takes. I think sometimes, we want our debates to be neat, like they were in school competitions. Point, counterpoint, you win, I lose, or I win, you lose. But that’s not what happens when Catholics debate with Protestants. We walk away full of doubts (and so does the Protestant, BTW!). We need to enter into dialogue with Protestants for the long haul.

That’s one nice thing about the internet forums–we can continue discussions with other members for years, assuming that no one gets banned.

 

[ltwin]

Yet people who believe in SS believe that it is forbidden to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Why the double standard here, ltwin?

No, it’s not actually forbidden. Protestants may believe in the IC; Catholicism says all Christians must believe in the IC as part of the Gospel.

I can’t help but smile at this. Is this not the Protestant paradigm?

To make uninformed arguments? You may think so.

Don’t you reserve for yourself to define for yourself what the Bible means, and then criticize the Catholic Church for not allowing their absurd interpretations?

You seem to be reserving for yourself the right to say, "I can think for myself, thank you very much, and don’t need anyone to tell me what the Bible means!’

No. I certainly don’t have that attitude. If someone can teach me, I am willing to learn. But, if their arguments and interpretations are unconvincing I reserve the right to be convinced by better arguments and interpretations.

yet…

you object to Catholics saying “This is what SS means and I don’t need anyone to tell me how to define it!”

Incidentally, since there is no Protestant magisterium, there is no one to speak for what SS truly and definitively means

We all get to define it as we wish, do we not, if we follow the Protestant paradigm?

Protestants can define it. But Catholics can’t.

I mean, Catholics can define it any way they wish. (It’s still a free country . . . for now.) Just don’t be surprised if Protestants are not willing to engage you in debates over “PRmerger’s-specially-made-interpretation” of Sola Scriptura.

 

[ltwin]

Except that NOWHERE is it limned in Scripture what a fundamental Biblical doctrine is.

Do you not find this problematic?

No. We can read and understand what the important parts are.

How do you know whether, say, the belief in the virgin birth is a fundamental truth or a secondary one?

What verse tells you this?

The fact that the Gospel writers go through all the trouble to actually say it should be indication enough. To deny this claim of Scripture would be to open up doubt about everything. Furthermore, the Virgin Birth is important to affirm as fundamental doctrine because without it all the other Scriptural claims about Christ and his divine nature fall apart. If Jesus were conceived by Joseph (or a Roman soldier rapist, etc.) rather than the Holy Spirit, then he would not have been the Son of God. He would not have a divine nature.

One might conclude, since St. Paul never mentions it–not even once–in any of his epistles, that it is not a primary truth?

Or one might conclude that since Matthew 1 clearly says that Christ would be born of a virgin and specifically cites Isaiah’s prophecy that it is important. And since we believe in Scripture Alone, we have to believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. If we said this fact was inconvenient, not important, and not essential to Jesus’ life, then we question and weaken the authority of Scripture. We also cast doubt on the entire life of Christ. If the Virgin birth is not above questioning, why is the Resurrection off limits?

Is that your belief–that the virgin birth is not an essential?

No, because I believe that Scripture is authoritative.

What about belief in there being 12 apostles? Is this a fundamental truth? And what verse in Scripture tells you this?

The fact that Scripture says there were 12 means that there were 12. Whether that needs to be explicitly stated in a church’s belief statement depends on how detailed they want their belief statement to be.

 

[stewstew03]

Post #55 is what prompted my cautionary note.

Here’s my take on “debate”–I try to assume, with great humility, that there is someone who can refute everything I say and believe in. Even if the person that I am talking with is not that person, I try to realize that somewhere that person is out there waiting for me. Bwoo ha ha.

We ought never to believe that we have everything all sewn up neatly, because that’s when the “seam ripper” will tear us apart and render us useless.

We need to prepare ourselves to continue a debate for as long as it takes. I think sometimes, we want our debates to be neat, like they were in school competitions. Point, counterpoint, you win, I lose, or I win, you lose. But that’s not what happens when Catholics debate with Protestants. We walk away full of doubts (and so does the Protestant, BTW!). We need to enter into dialogue with Protestants for the long haul.

That’s one nice thing about the internet forums–we can continue discussions with other members for years, assuming that no one gets banned.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.

But getting back to Post #55, I’m curious as to what prompted the cautionary tale? PR’s point to Itwin, at the risk of oversimplifying it, was basically this:

John Q Protestant objects to Catholicism because Rome makes up doctrine not based on scripture – “The Bible Alone! Sola Scriptura!” they say. Catholics point out the irony that Sola Scriptura is a made up doctrine not based on scripture.

 

[Cat]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.

But getting back to Post #55, I’m curious as to what prompted the cautionary tale? PR’s point to Itwin, at the risk of oversimplifying it, was basically this:

John Q Protestant objects to Catholicism because Rome makes up doctrine not based on scripture – “The Bible Alone! Sola Scriptura!” they say. Catholics point out the irony that Sola Scriptura is a made up doctrine not based on scripture.

What prompted my cautionary post was the phrase “Protestant paradigm.”

To me, this sounds like a catch phrase, perhaps original, but more than likely, picked up from an apologist or a website somewhere.

The problem with catch phrases is that they over-simplify complex issues. They also de-personalize and belittle the treasured beliefs of others. Think of how you feel when someone who is anti-Catholic refers the Eucharist as…well, I’d better not say, but I’m sure you can think of some catch phrases used by people like Jack T. Chick that are very hurtful to you and horribly offensive to Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, as well as being totally inaccurate.

I know that PRmerger is an experienced, considerate poster who is putting a lot of time and thought into their posts on this thread, and I hope my comments are not upsetting to PR. All I’m trying to do is remind all of us, myself included, that things are not as simple as they seem.

 

[horselvr]

Thank you everyone for your responses on this thread.

Cat: could you please clarify this statement you made: “These Protestant intellectuals are sequestered in universities, dissecting the writings of the Church fathers, and finding plenty of reasons in those writings to remain Protestant.”

Exactly what are the “plenty of reasons” that these Protestant intellectuals are finding to remain Protestants while sequestered in Universities dissecting the Church Fathers ? Exactly what is it that they have found? Thanks

PRmerger: Thank you for your contribution to this thread which I do not find derailing the thread at all.

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger,

The Scriptures are not just another book. They are the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit has to be factored in when people are trying to understand Scripture. The Holy Spirit can lead people into truth.

I frankly believe that when a person asks God to help them understand the Scriptures, God will answer, “Yes.” It may not happen that very day and moment. There are people who read the Scriptures and for years, come to incorrect conclusions about what they are reading.

But the Holy Spirit will not allow them to be led astray forever, IF they are truly desirous of righteousness. The Beatitude states, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.”

My husband and I love that verse because we humbly think that it is a description of our conversion to Catholicism. We were enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants for the first 47 years of our lives. But we truly HUNGERED for righteousness, and God eventually answered our prayer and led us to the Catholic Church, mainly through the Bible! Our study of the Bible over the decades made it obvious to us that the Catholic Church is the church most closely-aligned with the Scriptures. If we hadn’t been studying the Scriptures all those years while we were Protestants, we wouldn’t have recognized truth when we finally attended Mass.

Remember always that there are plenty of converts to Catholicism who came to recognize the validity of Catholicism* primarily through study of the Scriptures*.

And please be careful not to underestimate the scholarship of Protestants. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes Catholics make and then they get nailed when they finally do meet up with a high-intellectual who is a faithful Protestant.

Even if many of us (Protestants and ex-Protestants) here on CAF (or in your real life outside of the computer!) are not highly-educated in the fine details of Protestant systematic theology, there are Protestants who ARE educated far beyond the basic education that most Protestants have acquired through their own personal study.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the Protestants apologists that argue in public debate against some of our fine Catholic apologists are not the “intellectuals” of Protestantism.

Not to insult all the Protestants who come to CAF, but the high intellects of Protestantism don’t come to online sites or visit apologetics centers. They don’t write the kind of popular books that most Protestants-on-the-street read over lunch. And they don’t get “booked” to appear in media-broadcasted debates.

These Protestant intellectuals are sequestered in universities, dissecting the writings of the Church fathers, and finding plenty of reasons in those writings to remain Protestant. I wish that some of them WOULD debate Catholics so that Catholics could realize the scholarship behind Protestantism.

I think, Cat, you may be responding to someone else here on this thread. For your post is a nonsequitur to anything I have written.

To wit: your comment “The Scriptures are not just another book” is definitely a head-scratcher in response to anything I have written. There is nothing in my posts which have indicated that I have anything but the most profound and deep respect for the Scriptures.

I will not comment on the remainder of your post because it would be too tedious and cumbersome, in light of the fact that it has nothing at all to do with any sentiment I have.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger: Thank you for your contribution to this thread which I do not find derailing the thread at all.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s not actually forbidden.

Well, “it’s not actually forbidden” in the sense that there is no one with the authority in the Protestant world to do the actual forbidding, right?

But the point remains that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “It’s not forbidden in Scripture, therefore it’s permitted”, for all the things that you want to engage in…and then also tell Catholics, “It’s not permitted in Scripture, therefore it’s forbidden” for anything to which you disagree with us on.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless I missed it, I don’t think PR said anything about the intellectual vigor of Protestants, or their ability to find Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

PR’s point to Itwin, at the risk of oversimplifying it, was basically this:

John Q Protestant objects to Catholicism because Rome makes up doctrine not based on scripture – “The Bible Alone! Sola Scriptura!” they say. Catholics point out the irony that Sola Scriptura is a made up doctrine not based on scripture.

Egg-zactly.

And a further irony is the fact that a Protestant objects to a putative divergence from the Original Definition of Sola Scriptura (as if there even were such a thing), while embracing the Protestant paradigm that we are all permitted to diverge from the Original Interpretations of Scripture by the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

Well, “it’s not actually forbidden” in the sense that there is no one with the authority in the Protestant world to do the actual forbidding, right?

But the point remains that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “It’s not forbidden in Scripture, therefore it’s permitted”, for all the things that you want to engage in…and then also tell Catholics, “It’s not permitted in Scripture, therefore it’s forbidden” for anything to which you disagree with us on.

Hi PR, welcome back.

Perhaps it would help if we could decide what Protestant means. When you say there is no authority in the Protestant world, its like saying there is no authority in South America, for example. South America has never been one country that I know of, so to expect there to be one authority for South America seems unreasonable. There is authority in South America, but authority is specific to each country.

For Lutherans, the authority is scripture as reflected by the confessions. I am dependent on the authority of the Church, specifically the LCMS, to determine what is and is not permitted.
So, to say there is no authority in the protestant world seems equally unreasonable. It isn’t the same kind of hierarchical authority one sees in the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but there is authority, and for Lutherans specifically, it isn’t the individual.

Jon

 

[horselvr]

So then who is the authority over ALL the protestant churches/people? Do all Lutherans believe the same ?

 

[steido01]

So then who is the authority over ALL the protestant churches/people?

I’m somewhere between facepalm and headdesk.
****http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/giphycolbert.gif

There is no “Protestant Church.”
So asking who is in authority over different non-affiliated groups is akin to asking:

• Who is the authority over ALL the world’s religious people?
• Who is the authority over ALL the countries of the world?
• Who is the authority over ALL political parties?

Not all religious people believe the same thing. Not all the world’s countries have the same leaders. Not all political parties subscribe to the same ideologies.

Creating an arbitrary field, placing every non-Roman Catholic Western Christian into it, and then asking why they don’t have a single authority like your communion does is… foolish. Not only because you’re assuming that there is a consensus of belief in those unaffiliated groups, but also because you’re assuming that their beliefs are structurally parallel (yet inferior) to yours, so you conclude they must therefore require their own “pope.” But not every belief structure requires a human to hold the same authority that your particular communion does.

 

[JonNC]

So then who is the authority over ALL the protestant churches/people? Do all Lutherans believe the same ?

Christ. Just like He is the authority over Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and all Christians. We all preach Christ crucified.

Do all Lutherans believe the same? In terms of doctrine, yes, if they are Lutherans who confess the Augsburg Confession. And all Catholics believe the same, if they are Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome (some Catholics are not, and therefore may not).

Jon

 

[horselvr]

steido: I apologize for being so “foolish”. Suppose then, if you can’t answer a question without being rude you just get off my thread. K?

Who is over the protestants?? Is it the preacher at a given protestant church or the rev at the non-denom etc.

I figured someone would say Christ. And then who is it that ensure that what Christ taught is adhered to? Because they are not doing a very good job.

Who are the catholics that are not in communion with Rome?

And Cat I’m still waiting for my answer.

 

[JonNC]

=horselvr;11931107]steido: I apologize for being so “foolish”. Suppose then, if you can’t answer a question without being rude you just get off my thread. K?

I don’t believe Don said you were foolish.

Who is over the protestants?? Is it the preacher at a given protestant church or the rev at the non-denom etc.

How different communions work is up to them. Since there is no protestant communion, your question has no answer. As for how that non-denom church operates, one has to ask them. Same with a Southern Baptist church, or Presbyterian Church… I would presume to speak for them as a Lutheran, anymore than I would for the Catholic Church. And that’s the point. Even if we use the broad label protestant, a Lutheran isn’t a Baptist, isn’t a Methodist isn’t a non-denominational. They are different communions

I figured someone would say Christ. And then who is it that ensure that what Christ taught is adhered to? Because they are not doing a very good job.

I think I already explained the Lutheran practice. I’m hoping others will explain theirs.

Who are the catholics that are not in communion with Rome?

PNCC, Old Catholics, etc.

Jon