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

[Cat]

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.

Forgive me for not making myself clear.

This is what I was responding to in your posts:

*"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!’

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?"
*

What I hear you saying in these comments is that Protestants define the Bible as they wish. If that is not what you mean, then I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

What I was trying to tell you is that Protestants don’t just read the Bible and decide for themselves. The Holy Spirit guides Protestants in their interpretation of the Bible. That’s why the Bible isn’t just another book–it is God’s word and the Holy Spirit will help people understand God’s Word.

The Bible tells us in John 16: 13 that “the Holy Spirit will guide us into all the truth.” Protestants interpret this to mean exactly what it says-- that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth–no Church needed. That’s why they read the Bible and assume that they are interpreting it correctly–because they believe in the Holy Spirit and trust Him to guide them into truth.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

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–I simply mean what I said in the most face-value way.

To roughly quote Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (section 9), he says “all who are truly Christ’s” will believe in the the IC as a dogma as fundamental as that of the Trinity. While he’s addressing Catholic leaders here, he’s talking to them about non-Catholics, specifically in response to the Lausanne Conference of the World Council of Churches, IIRC. If I understand rightly, as a Catholic you must believe in the IC. I was just making the distinction that as a non-Catholic, I may believe in the IC (though I don’t, theoretically I may) without believing the doctrine has been so clearly revealed that it’s right to dogmatize it as a fundamental part of the Gospel.

I’m dog-tired…hope I’m being clear enough.

 

[PRmerger]

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

So a Bible Alone advocate must go by something other than the Bible to discern what the “important parts” are?

Do you not think that a Bible Alone advocate would want the Bible Alone to limn these “important parts”?

And can you give me a list of these Essential Truths that are found in the Bible? And how you know that it is an Essential Truth and not a Secondary Truth?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

'zactly.

So apply that to the Catholic posters who are presenting a different definition of Sola Scriptura than yours.

I remain unconvinced by your definition and reserve the right to use the one that I have seen offered by other Protestants.

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

Again, apply that to the Catholic posters who are presenting a different def of SS than yours.

We can read and understand what SS is.

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants can define it. But Catholics can’t.

Fair enough.

I will simply cite the source of my SS definition when it differs from yours, using a Protestant as my source.

Sound good?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This didn’t answer my question, ltwin.

Is the fact that there are 12 apostles an Essential Truth or a secondary one? And how does a Christian know this?

The fact that the Gospel writers go through all the trouble to actually say it should be indication enough.

Should I assume that we should apply it to the 12 apostles, then, and conclude that you do believe that the fact that there are 12 apostles is indeed an Essential Truth—something we are required to believe for salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

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

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.

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?

No, because I believe that Scripture is authoritative.

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.

 

[Cat]

So a Bible Alone advocate must go by something other than the Bible to discern what the “important parts” are?

Do you not think that a Bible Alone advocate would want the Bible Alone to limn these “important parts”?

And can you give me a list of these Essential Truths that are found in the Bible? And how you know that it is an Essential Truth and not a Secondary Truth?

Probably the most basic list of Essential Truths that all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, believe in, is the Five Fundamentals:

1. The inerrancy of the Scriptures…
2. The virgin birth and full Deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
4. Christ’s atoning, vicarious death for the sins of the world, also referred to as “blood atonement.”
5. The literal second coming of Jesus Christ.

These truths are found throughout the Scriptures. 4) is especially obvious in both Old and New Testament; one thing I love about Catholic Bible study is the use of “pre-figuring,” in which Old Testament events pre-figure New Testament events. I was never exposed to this in Protestant Bible studies–it’s really fascinating.

The people who teach the Five Fundamentals often make the claim that those who don’t believe in these truths cannot claim to be Christians. I can kind of go along with that. If you take away any of these five truths, you really don’t have historic, orthodox Christianity. I think 5) might be a little negotiable, and indeed, I have seen other lists of the five fundamentals that use the authenticity of Christ’s miracles as one of the fundamentals.

I hope this post is helpful.

 

[PRmerger]

But if the issue is of major import and especially if she firmly believes it violates the clear meaning of Scripture, then it would be impossible for her to remain in that church with a good conscience. Either she must conclude that she is wrong or she must conclude that the church is wrong in the light of God’s word.

I hope you see how this ends up to mean: I am obedient to no one except my own interpretation of Scripture. When I agree with the pastor, I submit. When I disagree with the pastor, I go elsewhere. (On Essential Matters, of course. But these Essential Matters have not yet been defined. As such, it remains a nebulous concept, these Essential Truths).

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR, welcome back.

Thanks, friend.

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.

Fair enough.

But let’s say that there was at one time an original authority for South America. And then one country seceded and formed its own union under the rallying cry, “I don’t need the authority of South America to tell me how to live. I have no authority except for [A]!”

And then some people secede from this union, utilizing the same rallying cry.

And so on and so on.

So when someone says, “You can’t do that because the seceded unions forbid it” citing not the authority of [A], but their own authority, is it not logical for someone to say, “You don’t have the authority to forbid me from doing that”?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger–I simply mean what I said in the most face-value way.

To roughly quote Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (section 9), he says “all who are truly Christ’s” will believe in the the IC as a dogma as fundamental as that of the Trinity. While he’s addressing Catholic leaders here, he’s talking to them about non-Catholics, specifically in response to the Lausanne Conference of the World Council of Churches, IIRC. If I understand rightly, as a Catholic you must believe in the IC.

Yep.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, friend.

Fair enough.

But let’s say that there was at one time an original authority for South America. And then one country seceded and formed its own union under the rallying cry, “I don’t need the authority of South America to tell me how to live. I have no authority except for [A]!”

And then some people secede from this union, utilizing the same rallying cry.

And so on and so on.

So when someone says, “You can’t do that because the seceded unions forbid it” citing not the authority of [A], but their own authority, is it not logical for someone to say, “You don’t have the authority to forbid me from doing that”?

It becomes even more confusing, then, if the original authority [A] had split hundreds of years before into A1 and A2. And, of course, A1 says A2 seceded, and A2 says A1 seceded. So, perhaps the one country that seceded learned the practice from A1 and A2.

Poor South America. It must be so confusing.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Probably the most basic list of Essential Truths that all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, believe in, is the Five Fundamentals:

1. The inerrancy of the Scriptures…
2. The virgin birth and full Deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
4. Christ’s atoning, vicarious death for the sins of the world, also referred to as “blood atonement.”
5. The literal second coming of Jesus Christ.

I notice that there is no mention of belief in One God in your list. Monotheism would seem to be an Essential Truth.

There is also no mention of the need for repentance.

No mention of the Holy Spirit.

No mention of God as Creator.

No mention of the 12 Apostles (assuming ltwin believes this to be an Essential, as the Gospel writers did go through the trouble of mentioning that).

And the most egregious omission of all: no mention of God as Love.

 

[PRmerger]

It becomes even more confusing, then, if the original authority [A] had split hundreds of years before into A1 and A2. And, of course, A1 says A2 seceded, and A2 says A1 seceded. So, perhaps the one country that seceded learned the practice from A1 and A2.

Poor South America. It must be so confusing.

Jon

South America splitting into A1 and A2 hundreds of years before…changes things, how?

 

[JonNC]

South America splitting into A1 and A2 hundreds of years before…changes things, how?

Both claim the authority.
Jon

 

[steido01]

Thanks, friend.

Fair enough.

But let’s say that there was at one time an original authority for South America. And then one country seceded and formed its own union under the rallying cry, “I don’t need the authority of South America to tell me how to live. I have no authority except for [A]!”

And then some people secede from this union, utilizing the same rallying cry.

And so on and so on.

So when someone says, “You can’t do that because the seceded unions forbid it” citing not the authority of [A], but their own authority, is it not logical for someone to say, “You don’t have the authority to forbid me from doing that”?

But South America never has had a single authority, and I think it’s intellectually dishonest to use that infamous ‘Lemming Doctrine’ in ecumenical discussions. The Lutheran Reformation happened independently of the Zwinglian Reformation, which happened independently from Rome’s Great Schism with the East, which happened independently from the Old Catholic schism from Rome, which happened independently from the PNCC’s split with Rome. Have some of these groups further splintered? Obviously. But you can’t pretend they all share some umbrella authority. Engage individually, not in arbitrary groupings.

In other news, PR is back! Woo! Now we’ll get some of her real gifs, instead of my sorry imitations.

 

[PRmerger]

Both claim the authority.
Jon

How does that matter in this scenario?

The point being made is that all the countries that seceded from either A1 or A2 (it matters not which) cannot object to a citizen of A1 or A2 seceding (doctrinally) from a doctrine that is being professed.

For the citizen of A1 or A2 is merely employing the paradigm that the seceders utilized.

 

[JonNC]

How does that matter in this scenario?

The point being made is that all the countries that seceded from either A1 or A2 (it matters not which) cannot object to a citizen of A1 or A2 seceding (doctrinally) from a doctrine that is being professed.

For the citizen of A1 or A2 is merely employing the paradigm that the seceders utilized.

They are employing the paradigm that A1 and A2 utilized!

But that’s no excuse. Just because authorities A1 and A2 set the paradigm doesn’t make it right, nor is it an excuse, or even a reason for others to use it. It is also the case that country “L”, which developed completely independently from country “Z” is not responsible for the splintering happening in country “Z”.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

But South America never has had a single authority,

Irrelevant.

This is a hypothetical, steido.

But you can’t pretend they all share some umbrella authority. Engage individually, not in arbitrary groupings.

Exactly my point.

In other news, PR is back! Woo! Now we’ll get some of her real gifs, instead of my sorry imitations.

True, dat.

 

[PRmerger]

They are employing the paradigm that A1 and A2 utilized!

A1 and A2 never embraced the paradigm, Jon. That is the paradigm of the groups which split from A1 and A2.

Now these citizens are objecting to people seceding from their POV.

That’s hypocritical!!

It is also the case that country “L”, which developed completely independently from country “Z” is not responsible for the splintering happening in country “Z”.

Jon

No one is positing here that Country L is responsible for the splintering that happened in Country Z.

What is being proposed is that Country L cannot object to a citizen splintering from Country Z, when Country L splintered from Country K.

If one country can do it, so can another.