Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Oy vey. Good thing I’m not keeping count.
Well, it doesn’t exactly FIT into this discussion, does it? LOL.
Thank you for your well reasoned response. I never blame individual Catholics for what their church believes. I just wish they’d investigate it more, rather than blindly accepting everything they’re taught. The same goes for protestant and other churches as well. If it doesn’t line up with scripture, then question, question, question.
Oh, you now have become a mind reader? Petronski, I’m so proud of you.
He’s a good man. You’re blessed to have him as your leader.
No mind reading. Strictly based on your posts.
Mindreading? Or is it your position that anyone who accepts Roman Catholic teaching only does so (could only do so) because they have not investigated it?
But not on my heart for you...
I don’t think a lot of people investigate ANY faith they are in. Doesn’t matter if it’s catholic or protestant. We are all sheep and easily led astray. Many are brought up in their religious denomination and never question it. QUESTION IT. Look in scripture and see for yourself, if you don’t already, and find out what God’s Word has to say about certain aspects of your or anyone else’s faith. It’s all there.
Please speak for yourself.
You are so baaaaaaaadddd (LOL).
And I responded then that there is no basis for that. Naturally, diverse pastors in the Protestant universe have authority in their parishes, but no apostolic historical authority exists for them.
Well, thanks at least, for those diverse pastors... On the rest we will continue to differ. Apostleship, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, is thought to be bestowed of the Spirit in the Protestant 'tradition', requiring no succession, nor hierarchical authority, in a fashion quite the same as the other gifts of the Spirit.
Somehow, even without the apostolic succession you require, we seem to muddle through, just clinging to the Word and the Name.
Even so, regardless of the "jot and tittle", one would have to be spiritually blind to claim the authority of the Spirit and the Word is not within the Protestant churches. All of the fruits of the Word, and all of the gifts of the Spirit are found within, especially among the fundamental branches. To deny that authority being present is a very grave error, IMHO.
I only listed what is possible; to recognize a supernatural authority of late interpretations of the Scripture is not possible.
Then there is that much less to talk about.
[Protestants fight like a sack of cats]
Yes, and this is sort of, my point:
Before going further, I would draw your attention to the portion of your post which prompted my reply:
2. Concentrate on its own confession rather than on defects in other confessions, just like Protestants do between themselves, and the Catholics do with the Orthodox.
My purpose in my reply was to attempt to sooth you somewhat with the idea that Catholics are not necessarily being singled out- That inter-denominational differences among the Protestants are treated in much the same fashion that we treat you, and the G. Orthodox, and the Mormons.
It was also my purpose to enlighten you of the prospect that unity among the Protestants, not to mention reconciliation among ourselves with the Catholics would be an unlikely event to say the least.
We are probably more bawdy than you would like it, perhaps more irreverent than is necessary, but it is the nature of the Protestants to be that way, and should not be considered a slight against you or others.
it looks like the Protestant opponents of Catholicism would deploy their energy better reaching unity among those with whom they share the purported basis for that unity, the scripture. You have the same truncated Canon of scripture and you all think it is sufficient for all one needs for salvation, -- so where is your unity?
I don't believe any of us suppose that unity is forthcoming, nor is there any great need to come to a singular voice, as seems to be the cause of such angst among your fellows. We are content to follow the Spirit, beholden to the Scriptures, respectful of tradition, and mindful always of the Great Hope which lies in Christ.
But we each (denominationally) believe what we believe with a great conviction, and we are duty bound to exhort our fellows (yourselves included), to impress upon them (and they upon us) the needful things that they are missing.
Out of that great sea of cacophony, there arises a singular voice that is a surprisingly synchronized harmony that allows the Protestant churches to move in unison on a great many things.
One could argue that that greater harmonic voice is the voice of the true Church, the thread of Blood that runs through all of the Christian confessions. Until that great day, when the Master comes again, I am afraid that will have to suffice.
Unity is not what we seek. What we seek is first and foremost, the TRUTH.
Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true.
I think they do that in some cases. The problem is again that it would require a Protestant version of papal Nihil Obstat Imprimatur, difficult to come by between diverse Protestant groups.
I don't believe that would be as hard to do as one might think, at least between the fundamentalists and the Catholics. A modern translation capable enough to please us all is greatly needed. A unified and declarative front would lend credence to such an endeavor.
that is to be resolved by either direction
Why, historically and scripturally, of course. Christ did not promise the Holy Spirit to inspire everyone, but His Apostles alone.
What, then, is the difference between John's baptism and Christ's? Who then is the Comforter whom Christ has sent?
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
(e-Sword: KJV)
[paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles]
I am yet to see a Protestant who would read St. Irenaeus on free will, St. Justin Martyr on Mary and the Eucharist, or St. Ignatius on obedience to bishops or Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and say: "This is a pagan influence and this is a judaizing influence and this is why". The only Church Father that is read (very selectively) is St. Augustine, -- the least recent and the least universally accepted of them all.
Then I will happily be your first. I will, with grave report, and in all honesty, reject anything written by anyone, which does not comply fully with the words of the Holy Scripture upon the basis that the writing is tainted by those and other effects.
That is not to say that those writings are without value, but the truest Word must inherently lie within the Word itself. Any construct not specifically founded within the Sacred Text is automatically found to be suspect, and unless one can reconcile it to the Scriptures, it must be found wanting- The obvious culprit would be the slow and incessant corruption of the tradition by outside sources known to be assailing the Church even from the days of the Apostles themselves.
The standard must be the very same as it has aways and ever been- the same test as laid upon the scribes and prophets of the Old Testament. Anything added to the old must comply fully with the old and cannot nullify that which is already written.
Some of what the Protestants believe is apostolic because it is Orthodox Catholic. I would never say that the Protestant world as a whole is without root. But Protestantism as awhole is built upon a denial of the apostolic root, so as a whole it is without authority.
You really are not talking about that -- you instead focus on the fruits of the Holy Spirit undoubtedly present in some Protestants individually. I do not deny that either, nor did I claim that the fruits of the Holy Spirit are in evidence in every Catholic.
Catholics are not necessarily being singled out
To the extent that criticism of Catholicism is respectful and is based on honest differences in how the scripture is read I have no problem with it. I have aproblem with anti-Catholic sloganeering, evident, to give one example, in attacks on the veneration of Mary and the saints. Here the Protestants typically lose all reasoning ability. I do not think the same brain-dead hostility is ever directed at the Protestant intra-mural fights.
Out of that great sea of cacophony, there arises a singular voice that is a surprisingly synchronized harmony that allows the Protestant churches to move in unison on a great many things.
One could argue that that greater harmonic voice is the voice of the true Church
Whatever single voice emerges from all Protestant branches, is denial of Catholicism. You don't have any unity other than in that negative sense. Is there a need for it? Christ thought so: re-read John 17.
I don't believe that would be as hard to do as one might think
It is hard. Here is one example. The scripture uses the word "presbyteros" to describe a person of authority in the Christian Church. Our word "priest" derives from it. It literally means something like "leader". There was no doubt prior to the Reformation that it should be translated as "priest". Now Protestnat translations insist on "elder". There is no other purpose to mistranslate like this other than to remove a prooftext for clericalism. What, do you think, would be an objective translation?
What, then, is the difference between John's baptism and Christ's? Who then is the Comforter whom Christ has sent?
John's baptism was onto repentance alone since the Resurrection implicit in Catholic baptism had not happened.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit that we are talking about -- the discernment of scripture -- are received not at baptism but at confirmation, a separate sacrament. The promise of the Comforter is given the apostles. The scripture does not authorize the claim of the divine inspiration outside of the sacramental apostolic succession, found in the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian apostolic Churches. It is not found in Protestantism by definition.
Anything added to the old must comply fully with the old and cannot nullify that which is already written.
Of course, but a study of the Church fathers would rarely find anything discordant with the inspired scripture and even more rarely will it please a Protestant. The Fathers are histrorical evidence of how the scripture was understood by people who lived in the same culture Christ and the apostles did. It scuarely condemns the Protestnat interpretations as late and artificial.
RobRoy said Wow, just wow.
Right down to the last sentence...
You absolutely nailed my feelings and beliefs here. You hit pretty much ALL of my hot buttons on this.
Well said.
I say Amen and amen...wonderful post chuckles!
AlaninSA said:
I’ll take my Church, founded in 33AD by Christ Himself and continue to be a loyal member, a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus and the father of two children being raised in the Faith while attending a faithful Catholic School.
AlaninSA if you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Lord & Savior...then “YOU” are the Church...the church isn’t a building or denomation.
It’s every man...woman...or child that has invited Jesus into their hearts.
The Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the Catholics and the Orthodox are members (1 Cor 12). The membership is through baptism (Acts 2, 1 Cor 12).
I would never say that the Protestant world as a whole is without root.
I would be interested in how you might divvy that up, exactly. I am already aware that you would accredit the pastorship of certain individual churches, and certain individuals. Would you not grant any hierarchy, any branch, that access to the root?
I would also suggest that the root is not the Apostles, but that the Root is Christ.
But Protestantism as awhole is built upon a denial of the apostolic root, so as a whole it is without authority.
No, the Protestant churches are a denial of Catholic authority over that root, and in that sense (with no offense meant), I would propose that it (Protestantism) embraces the Root in lieu of the vine.
Any who possess the New Testament are not without the sure and certain guidance of the first of the apostles, those who were in fact the very closest to the Root itself.
In that we have the words of Christ Himself, and of His apostles, in that they all together provide that which is necessary for the individual Christian heart, and that they also provide for the constructions and instructions of the Church, along with exhortations and cautions in that regard, who can claim other than the bare fact that the apostles are capable in their words, of planting churches even unto this very day?
Who can deny the apostolic authority of the very first apostles of Christ themselves in this work? Who can claim an ascension of authority higher than theirs? What elaboration is proved necessary beyond that which they taught, and how does that edify the Church to the glory of Christ?
You really are not talking about that -- you instead focus on the fruits of the Holy Spirit undoubtedly present in some Protestants individually. I do not deny that either, nor did I claim that the fruits of the Holy Spirit are in evidence in every Catholic.
It is the movement of the Spirit that defines the Church. He is the evidence of authority. The work of those He inhabits combine in aggregate to become the power and authority of the Church, in the singular sense. The combination of Spirit filled people in spirit filled churches in multiplicity lend credence to the branch, and this is extrapolated in much the same sense into the denomination. In that way, evidence of the Spirit, and the authority of the Church, are one and the same thing.
Whatever single voice emerges from all Protestant branches, is denial of Catholicism. You don't have any unity other than in that negative sense.
That is entirely in error, my FRiend. There is far more that unifies us than divides us. Our battles are all about application of sacraments, application of law, and differences in focus. There is no doubt that the message of the Gospel is the very same throughout the greatest portion of Protestantism, and is, no doubt, the very same message that is the root of the RCC. That is the true Catholic sense, as opposed to the Roman Catholic definition thereof.
To offer a convenient example, The messy conglomeration that makes up the body of political discussion here on FR is indistinct, cacophonous, irreverent, argumentative, loud, obnoxious, factional, and etc. It's factions are quite quarrelsome, moderation is impossible, and trying to find agreement is like trying to herd cats, as has often been said. But even in it's creation of an arguably lethal environment, I would ask you one question:
Which more clearly sounds the call of Conservatism, and where can Conservatism be found: freerepublic.com or the more official and sanctioned gop.com?
Is there a need for it? Christ thought so: re-read John 17.
I do not think that the Christian Church Universal is without unity.
The scripture uses the word "presbyteros" [...] There is no other purpose to mistranslate like this other than to remove a prooftext for clericalism. What, do you think, would be an objective translation?
What would then differentiate between presbyteros and hiereus, archiereus, and hiereus magas, all words specifically defining 'priest'?
But as to your greater statement, I see your point.
but a study of the Church fathers would rarely find anything discordant with the inspired scripture and even more rarely will it please a Protestant.
I particularly disagree. It is just that the Protestant looks toward the translation, which was in the sole control of the RCC for many hundreds of years, with a jaundiced eye.
Since the original works are unaccounted for, the Church must rely upon copies. Since we must rely upon the RCC as the sole arbiter of translation and veracity, and since some of the ante-nicene fathers show competing translations, even within the RCC, it is not incumbent upon us to believe the written word as evidence at all, as the Church had many hundreds of years to alter the texts to suit their fancy. That is *not* to say they did, but to outline a basis for disagreement.
And one cannot overlook the fact that these writers are not inerrant. Irenaeus as an example, goes into the Prophecy in some detail, and is inarguably wrong in his assumptions. So they are *not* infallable on their face. Not that these texts are without value, but to claim historicity of the RCC by way of documents controlled by the RCC is a circular redundancy remarkably tilted in the RCC's favor that cannot be used as evidence.
Okey dokey...I believe Jesus is the Rock. (Not Peter) :)
And all believers in Jesus are the Church (Everyone that has accepted Jesus as their Lord & Savior)...we are the Bride of Jesus...Jesus is the bridegroom.
And Jesus is coming back for us sooon!!!
http://www.his-forever.com/jewish_weddings_rapture.htm
God bless
I am already aware that you would accredit the pastorship of certain individual churches, and certain individuals. Would you not grant any hierarchy, any branch, that access to the root?
I would grant access to apostolic root to those communities of faith that have unbroken apostolic succession and whose theology has not drifted away from the understanding of ordination, confession and the Eucharist. They do not have to be in agreement or communion with Rome, but they have to have valid priesthood and valid sacraments. The Orthodox and various pre-Chalcedon Churches have that. The Anglican Church had apostilicity till the change in their consecration rites broke it. For details, see Leo XIII's bull proclaiming the Anglican See's breach. There may be some extant continuing Lutheran branches, but surely not the large Lutheran denominations of today. That is about it.
I do not think that the Christian Church Universal is without unity
By that you mean everyone who professes Christ and the Lord and Savior. No, in that sense, of course there is no unity of which Christ prayed, saying "may they be one as my Father and I are one". We don't even agree on what is a valid baptism, the true mark of the visible Church.
What would then differentiate between presbyteros and hiereus, archiereus, and hiereus magas, all words specifically defining 'priest'?
Hiereus, correct me if I am wrong, only refers to Hebrew priests, and perhaps pagan priests, and context is usually sufficient to disambiguate those in English.
I am glad you see my larger point though, that a lot in the translations is loaded one way or another. Here is another example: "kecharitimeneh" is a neologism in Greek, sort of like "overgraced" or "begraced". Protestant translations have it invariably a construct of "favored", e.g. "most favored one". The substitution of "favor" for "grace" trivializes the unique blessing of Mary, but is of course in line with the latter-day Protestant mariology which does not see in Mary anything all that unique. In John 19, the original literally says that the disciple "took her [Mary] with his own". The phrase seems clipped in translation, so for the ease of reading it is often rendered "took her to his home". That, again, trivializes the adoption of John as a mere economic arrangement, which happens to be the Protestant thinking. I don't see either side compromizing here, although Catholic translations exist that for whatever reason follow the Protestant version in these two cases.
Since we must rely upon the RCC as the sole arbiter of translation and veracity, and since some of the ante-nicene fathers show competing translations, even within the RCC, it is not incumbent upon us to believe the written word as evidence at all
Textual variations exist, but no matter which variant you take, you won't find Protestant fundamental doctrines either proclaimed or condemned, when you find a lot of heresies described in detail and condemned. What you have here is a conglomeration of two arguments: that the Fathers were all infected by Judaizers and pagans (while being invariably hostile to both the Jews of the Gospel and the pagans), and that all evidence of proto-Protestantism was redacted (while any other heresy descriptions were not redacted). Both are arguments from non-evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.