Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[Newsy]

Yes. The Council of Rome in 384, etc. structured the walls of Biblical canon. The only thing it mandated was that the bricks layed down could not be removed. Trent simply put the roof on it to make known that the canon, as it were then VIA the Roman Catholic Church was closed. Protestants of all flavors are technically under the liturgical disciplines and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Eastern Catholic churches or the Eastern Orthodox churches. They [Protestants] are simply “in protest”, somewhat similar to that of the SSPX.

Ok, that’s what I understood, maybe I didn’t explain it well.

 

[PRmerger]

You mean not the trinity? I would explain it the best I could till she got it,

So there you go. That’s exactly what the Church is trying to do.

And yet you say that the Church can’t tell you what to think. Are you not doing the same thing to this poor, hapless soul who thinks that the Bible says that Jesus isn’t divine?

You want to set her straight, right?

So how do you explain this, Luv? *You *get to try to teach someone what’s the true meaning of Scripture, but the Church can’t? The very Church which preserved, codified, guarded and presented these Scriptures to you can’t guide you into the Truth?

 

[Newsy]

Are we back to that now? Do I believe the CC can misinterpret scripture as much as say a protestant Church, well not for Catholics but maybe for protestants so I guess it depends on who is reading their interpretation.

But yet you also say that when someone reads the Bible and concludes that Jesus is NOT divine, this is what you should do:

Now I don’t believe I ever said that.

So, this begs the question… Is there Absolute truth? If there is, then opposing ideas cannot both be right.

 

[Luvtosew]

So there you go. That’s exactly what the Church is trying to do.

And yet you say that the Church can’t tell you what to think. Are you not doing the same thing to this poor, hapless soul who thinks that the Bible says that Jesus isn’t divine?

You want to set her straight, right?

So how do you explain this, Luv? *You *get to try to teach someone what’s the true meaning of Scripture, but the Church can’t? The very Church which preserved, codified, guarded and presented these Scriptures to you can’t guide you into the Truth?

See you know you and I need to agree to disagree. What would you do, I would probably yes teach her about the trinity as yes I do know what the trinity is. I don’t believe everything the CC teaches, I"m sorry, I just don’t., now that I came to this forum and found out more about what they teach. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those.

 

[Newsy]

See you know you and I need to agree to disagree. What would you do, I would probably yes teach her about the trinity as yes I do know what the trinity is. I don’t believe everything the CC teaches, I"m sorry, I just don’t., now that I came to this forum and found out more about what they teach. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those.

Who decides what the fundamentals of faith are? What are these fundamentals that you are talking about? You accept the Trinity, which is never mentioned in Scripture, but you reject the Church that gave us that teaching?

 

[Luvtosew]

Who decides what the fundamentals of faith are? What are these fundamentals that you are talking about? You accept the Trinity, which is never mentioned in Scripture, but you reject the Church that gave us that teaching?

Who taught you about the faith, I see your a convert, how long have you been Catholic?
If I may ask.

 

[Newsy]

Who taught you about the faith, I see your a convert, how long have you been Catholic?
If I may ask.

Does it matter? I am asking these questions to figure out your perspective. I have a good understanding of the Catholic Faith. When you say, “It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith.”, it brings up the question, what are the “fundamentals”? Please don’t make this personal or question my understanding of the Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

What would you do, I would probably yes teach her about the trinity as yes I do know what the trinity is.

I would do the same thing that the Church does–try to inform the person about the Truth of the Scriptures.

When a person is wrong, you or I (or, the Church) tells the person, “No, the Bible does NOT say that Jesus is only a man and NOT God.”

You are saying that you and I and Adam and Janet can tell a person that they have misunderstood the Scriptures, but that the Church can’t.

Why? Why does the Church not have the right to do this but you and I and Amanda and Lionel and Keiko and Answar can?

I don’t believe everything the CC teaches, I"m sorry, I just don’t., now that I came to this forum and found out more about what they teach.

Then you have created a god in your own image, Luv. :sad_yes:

God is going to say some things that you just don’t like to hear. That’s just the way it is, Luv.

Is there anything you believe God said that you don’t like? Or have you simply dismissed all the hard sayings and said, “God didn’t really say that!”

It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those.

What are these fundamentals? And how do you know what they are?

Does the Bible say that there are fundamentals?

(Here’s the answer: nope. The Bible mentions nothing at all about fundamentals of the Christian faith.)

 

[PRmerger]

See you know you and I need to agree to disagree.

About what? That you get to teach a person what’s the correct interpretation of Scripture but the Church can’t?

I will certainly agree to disagree with this if you will give a reason why you get to do this but the Church can’t.

I’ve asked you this about 3 times now and still waiting for an answer:

Here’s the question again: why do you get to teach a person what’s the correct interpretation of Scripture (“Scripture says that Jesus is God! God is a Trinity!”) but the Church can’t?

If you give a reasoned, logical, thoughtful response then I will certainly agree to disagree.

 

[Luvtosew]

Does it matter? I am asking these questions to figure out your perspective. I have a good understanding of the Catholic Faith. When you say, “It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith.”, it brings up the question, what are the “fundamentals”? Please don’t make this personal or question my understanding of the Faith.

**]**See you know you and I need to agree to disagree. What would you do, I would probably yes teach her about the trinity as yes I do know what the trinity is. I don’t believe everything the CC teaches, I"m sorry, I just don’t., now that I came to this forum and found out more about what they teach. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those.

I think you can see you misquoted me, ** It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those. ** I said I disagree on some of the teachings of the Catholic faith but not the fundamental ones.

You asked me if I’m rejecting the teaching of the Church that gave me the fundamentals of the faith, no not really, but I do now reject some of their teachings, not the basics.

Do you reject the whoever taught you the basics of Christianity? no I’m sure not.

 

[Newsy]

**]**See you know you and I need to agree to disagree. What would you do, I would probably yes teach her about the trinity as yes I do know what the trinity is. I don’t believe everything the CC teaches, I"m sorry, I just don’t., now that I came to this forum and found out more about what they teach. It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those.

I think you can see you misquoted me, ** It has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I do believe Catholics and Protestants (most I would imagine) agree on those. ** I said I disagree on some of the teachings of the Catholic faith but not the fundamental ones.

You asked me if I’m rejecting the teaching of the Church that gave me the fundamentals of the faith, no not really, but I do now reject some of their teachings, not the basics.

Do you reject the whoever taught you the basics of Christianity? no I’m sure not.
OK, you said you reject some of their teachings. Then you said “It has nothing to do with the fundamentals”. So, what are these fundamentals?

This has nothing to do with me, I am asking you a question about your post. Please explain it to me.

 

[Anthony_V]

Hi Anthony,
This seems troublesome, in that it implies that the Catholic Church doesn’t know about these other books, if they are canon or not. Yet, Trent was infallible. Yes?

Oddly enough, this appears similar to the position of the Lutheran Church regarding the antilegomena (historically contested books) of both testaments. Minimally, and for doctrinal purposes, the homolegomena (universally attested books) are indeed canon. The antilegomena, because they are historically disputed, are certainly important for reading, even liturgically, and study. In this way, they can (and should) be considered scripture.

It’s very similar to antilegomena and homolegomena. However, the main difference lies in the purpose for doctrinal deduction (at least to my knowledge). Lutherans get their doctrine from the Sacred Scriptures. Catholics and eastern Orthodox receive doctrine from active Sacred Tradition (e.g. the Church), which is reflected in Sacred Scriptures.

I’d be curious as to how you conclude that the different views of the canon caused a domino effect.

Thanks,
Jon

During the Bubonic plague, the Church sent out priests to confer last rites. These priests got sick and died. Eventually, we ended up with a shortage of priests. The Church decided to go ahead and conscript-ordain men as priests, even though they had yet to complete their seminary training. There were a certain few who would want to take advantage of the Church in her time of weakness. Eventually, some of these made their way up the totem pole, and caused internal turmoil. You had bishops and priests who were bishops and priests for all the wrong reasons. As you can imagine, this devastated the Church’s external charity, and thus catechesis. If the Bubonic plague never happened, there probably wouldn’t have been a reformation, because there wouldn’t really have been anything to reform. If you’re someone like Luther who lived during that time, and leaned more towards direct Divine Sovereignty (intrinsically efficacious grace) than indirect Divine Sovereignty (co-operatively efficacious grace), you would look like a die-hard liberal when you’re really just a centralist.
You and I both know that Luther’s general idea of grace was right. It is conferred both by faith and by sacrament. Not just one or the other. We see how he was disturbed (and for good reason) a great deal in the “go to confession or hell” type of statement.
So when this more progressive definition of Sola Gratia fell into the hands of smart, but somewhat questionable people (like Calvin), it gets twisted and warped pretty easy when you don’t have an official magisterium to pronounce it as heresy (and there were a lot in the early Church). It’s like trying to imagine the early Church without Antioch and only a small handful of Church fathers. How can you defend against Gnosticism, or Arianism, or Pelagianism without those noble men and women? This splintering in even the interpretation of Sola Gratia itself become a deathtrap when trying to interpret views on the canon. Doctrine and dogma, while not the source of grace, definitely instruct the economic means of its distribution. I’m extraordinarily grateful that Luther held tight to the real presence. It’s in the common belief about the Eucharist that traditional Christians are held together much stronger than those who do not.
All that to say, we’re coming closer to reunification, prayer by prayer. I can only quote St. Faustina to fully express myself:
“Eternal God, in whom Mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion – inexhaustible, look kindly on us and increase Your Mercy in us, that in difficult moments we might not despair nor become despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your holy will, which is Love and Mercy itself. Amen.”

Peace be with you,
Anthony V.

 

[Luvtosew]

About what? That you get to teach a person what’s the correct interpretation of Scripture but the Church can’t?

I will certainly agree to disagree with this if you will give a reason why you get to do this but the Church can’t.

I’ve asked you this about 3 times now and still waiting for an answer:

Here’s the question again: why do you get to teach a person what’s the correct interpretation of Scripture (“Scripture says that Jesus is God! God is a Trinity!”) but the Church can’t?

If you give a reasoned, logical, thoughtful response then I will certainly agree to disagree.

You know I don’t know, so many Catholics here, and I’m one seem to have so many questions about everything. Reading articles that some graduates that don’t know the trinity, its a link way back in this thread, I’m sure the CC teaches the CC dogmas, prayers, teachings about VM and that, but hey I have talked to a few Catholics and well they also didn’t know the host was actual flesh, so I don’t know what they are teaching nowdays, I’m sure its focused on the Mass and Prayers which prayers are very important,
and the sacraments, so I don’t know.

So I don’t know the Church should be able to, never say they can’t, I say that I don’t agree with everything they teach now that I know what they teach.

 

[PRmerger]

So I don’t know the Church should be able to, never say they can’t, I say that I don’t agree with everything they teach now that I know what they teach.

I appreciate (and love you for this!) your honesty in saying, “I don’t know the answer to how I could explain this.” I don’t think it’s exactly true that you never said the Church can’t explain the Bible.

You said this:

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

This means that you can come to your own interpretations of the Bible and don’t need the Church to tell you what it means.

And yet you believe that you need to explain the truth to someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity after reading the Bible.

Isn’t that all the Church does, too?

 

[rinnie]

You know I don’t know, so many Catholics here, and I’m one seem to have so many questions about everything. Reading articles that some graduates that don’t know the trinity, its a link way back in this thread, I’m sure the CC teaches the CC dogmas, prayers, teachings about VM and that, but hey I have talked to a few Catholics and well they also didn’t know the host was actual flesh, so I don’t know what they are teaching nowdays, I’m sure its focused on the Mass and Prayers which prayers are very important,
and the sacraments, so I don’t know.

So I don’t know the Church should be able to, never say they can’t, I say that I don’t agree with everything they teach now that I know what they teach.

Well you know what they say, you don’t have to agree with all of the Teaching’s of Christ in his Church. You just have to obey!

 

[PRmerger]

You know I don’t know, so many Catholics here, and I’m one seem to have so many questions about everything.

Yes, questioning is always good.

As the great Cardinal Henry Newman 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”.

Reading articles that some graduates that don’t know the trinity, its a link way back in this thread, I’m sure the CC teaches the CC dogmas, prayers, teachings about VM and that, but hey I have talked to a few Catholics and well they also didn’t know the host was actual flesh, so I don’t know what they are teaching nowdays, I’m sure its focused on the Mass and Prayers which prayers are very important,
and the sacraments, so I don’t know.

How would you fix this? What do you think the Church needs to change in her catechesis?

 

[Luvtosew]

** "I don’t know the answer to how I could explain this**

are you putting more words in my mouth. its not that big really. most peole tell me to speak up esp on the phone.

I so agree at some time in a persons life they need to question things for themselves, and just not go with the flow so to speak, and well it has seemed that the things that have bothered me for the last couple years have been answered. So thats pretty much where I"m at.

I’m really not here to even suggest what the Church should do, I came here first to ask a simple quest and then found out some of the teachings I never knew about, so unless one believes everything they teach they can’t be Catholic, so in actuality that in itself would put many Catholics on the street corner. wouldn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m really not here to even suggest what the Church should do,

Fair enough.

But then by the same token it doesn’t seem fair to come to the CAFs and suggest that the Church is wrong about a particular thing (in this case, how it catechizes her young folks) if you’re not going to offer a solution.

I came here first to ask a simple quest and then found out some of the teachings I never knew about,

Yes, and proclaimed some things that the Church never said also (such as that the laity were forbidden to read the Scriptures). It is clear that what you thought was Catholicism is not the real Catholicism.

so unless one believes everything they teach they can’t be Catholic, so in actuality that in itself would put many Catholics on the street corner. wouldn’t it?

I guess it’s similar to this: unless one believes everything that Christ teaches they can’t be Christian, so in actuality that would put many Christians on the street corner, wouldn’t it?

(Example: almost no other Christian denomination believes Jesus’ words that if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery. They simply dismiss this teaching and allow divorced people to re-marry in their churches. )

 

[Luvtosew]

Fair enough.

But then by the same token it doesn’t seem fair to come to the CAFs and suggest that the Church is wrong about a particular thing (in this case, how it catechizes her young folks) if you’re not going to offer a solution.

Thats quite an unfair statement. The CC teaches what it teaches. I never said the CC was wrong about their teaching, I just have learned I don’t agree with their teaching, whether its right or wrong is not for me to say.

Yes, and proclaimed some things that the Church never said also (such as that the laity were forbidden to read the Scriptures). It is clear that what you thought was Catholicism is not the real Catholicism.

Never said that either PR, I said it was discoraged, not encouraged. You seem to want to take everything out of context.I guess it’s similar to this: unless one believes everything that Christ teaches they can’t be Christian, so in actuality that would put many Christians on the street corner, wouldn’t it?

No I don’t believe that, they can not be Catholic, not all Christians are Catholics.

(Example: almost no other Christian denomination believes Jesus’ words that if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery. They simply dismiss this teaching and allow divorced people to re-marry in their churches. )

 

[Luvtosew]

Fair enough.

But then by the same token it doesn’t seem fair to come to the CAFs and suggest that the Church is wrong about a particular thing (in this case, how it catechizes her young folks) if you’re not going to offer a solution.

Thats quite an unfair statement. The CC teaches what it teaches. I never said the CC was wrong about their teaching, I just have learned I don’t agree with their teaching, whether its right or wrong is not for me to say.

Yes, and proclaimed some things that the Church never said also (such as that the laity were forbidden to read the Scriptures). It is clear that what you thought was Catholicism is not the real Catholicism.

Never said that either PR, I said it was discoraged, not encouraged. You seem to want to take everything out of context.

I guess it’s similar to this: unless one believes everything that Christ teaches they can’t be Christian, so in actuality that would put many Christians on the street corner, wouldn’t it?

No I don’t believe that, they can not be Catholic, not all Christians are Catholics, also this is one thing that bothers me terribly, who teaches you that only Catholics can be Christian, does that come from the Church or your opinion??.

(Example: almost no other Christian denomination believes Jesus’ words that if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery. They simply dismiss this teaching and allow divorced people to re-marry in their churches. )

What does that have anything to do with this topic, but I don’t think Catholics have any better a divorce rate than other Chrisitans.

Now it seems to me that you think Catholics are better than other Christians, where do you get that from?? I’d like to know?