Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
Luke wrote: "its been fun yall. "
I agree.
Wow, we actually do have some thtings we can agree on, lol.
Right now, I'm doing some researching on early Church history, and the early papacy, and I'm learning a lot. Luke, thank you for inspiring me to learn more about the early church. I don't quite know enough yet to respond to the remaining posts, but I'm getting there. Right now, I'm doing interent study, and waiting for Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church to come in. (Why I haven't been on goodreads lately.) But while I study, I want to play some offense, because honestly, I haven't been playing it enough lately. Luke, you clearly know a lot about your faith, and you are clearly confident you have the right faith. I admire that. But as a Catholic, I've grown up learning various attacks on Protestantism, most of which are summarized by this article: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/nu....
In particular, it is these arguments that consist to answer as to why I am not a Protestant: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/nu...
DEFINITION of SS given by Greg Krehbiel that I will use:
"Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice" -- hence, all "churches" and any "traditions" (today) are fallible.
---There is no direct teaching of SS in Scripture (OT or NT)
---How do I know *MY* interpretation of Scripture is correct?
---VI. SS is UNWORKABLE (and impractical)
(1) the fact of over 20,000 Protestant denominations and sects in contrast to the unity of faith (Eph 4:5) in the Catholic Church
(2) Scripture alone is not perspicuous enough (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) to resolve major doctrinal disputes or moral teachings
(3) how can the individual Christian know today who is right?
(4) SS implies nobody is bound to any interpretation but their own since all "churches" and any "traditions" are fallible
(5) each individual Christian is fallible but the historic Christian and Catholic solution is the Magisterium that teaches God's Word infallibly (e.g. in Ecumenical Councils) -- does it really work?
So tell me as a Protestant theologian, what is the Protestant response to this? How do you personally justify your faith from these attacks?
I'm not sure when I'll get the chance to come on here and post, because this week is particularly busy for me, and that's without all the reading I'm going to be doing for this debate. Just so you know I'm not ignoring the chance to reply to something. :D I'll be back when I can.
Bryn why did the Catholics massacre Jews?
well, I will pray that God opens your eyes to see the glory of Christ in the gospel. keep studying, seek and you will find!
Luke wrote: "well, I will pray that God opens your eyes to see the glory of Christ in the gospel. keep studying, seek and you will find!"Likewise! :D
The Catholics owe the Jews a lot of kindness. Christians likewise
Intojoy wrote: "Bryn why did the Catholics massacre Jews?"Why did Martin Luther hate Jews?
Luther said:
“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…
Martin Luther; On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955
“Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.”
About the Jews and Their Lies,’ quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290.
“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”
Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413.
“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.”
Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502.
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it.
But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies– that is, longer than two thousand years.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Intojoy wrote: "Bryn why did the Catholics massacre Jews?"What incident are you refering to?
Intojoy wrote: "The Catholics owe the Jews a lot of kindness. Christians likewise"Agreed. And no Catholic doctrine contradicts that statement either.
Luther said the Jews should be removed
Why don't you join me in studying the scriptures from the Jewish frame of reference?
We can start a thread like this one:
Nicodemus's first century Pharisaic Judaism and how we gentile believers miss out on some contextual facts
We can start a thread like this one:
Nicodemus's first century Pharisaic Judaism and how we gentile believers miss out on some contextual facts
Thanks for bringing up those quotes Bryn. Luther sure had some freaky things to say about Jews. (That's another reason that I am not a Lutheran).But just to be feisty: have you seen what the Bible has to say about humanity? Apparently we are nasty and deserving of Hell.
Luther indeed took his Jesus very seriously. But if Jesus could forgive those who killed him - then there's no reason Luther couldn't. Although Luther did desire all the Jew's accept salvation (according to some quotes).
Rod wrote: "Thanks for bringing up those quotes Bryn. Luther sure had some freaky things to say about Jews. (That's another reason that I am not a Lutheran).But just to be feisty: have you seen what the Bibl..."
No problem.
And yes I have. I just have a problem with targeting a certain race, gender, or creed as espeacially evil, because those things don't make us evil. Only choosing to reject God, and refusing to be a loving person makes you evil.
Intojoy wrote: "Why don't you join me in studying the scriptures from the Jewish frame of reference?We can start a thread like this one:
Nicodemus's first century Pharisaic Judaism and how we gentile believers mi..."
I'd love to. But at the moment I'm pretty busy with this thread. When I finish replying to everyone on here, then I'd be happy to.
Very interesting. No one has offered a response to post 253. I wonder why...??? Luke, I'm espeacially suprised you didn't reply yet. You ussually reply to what I write extreamly soon.
Bryn question:"So tell me as a Protestant theologian, what is the Protestant response to this? How do you personally justify your faith from these attacks?"
Many Christians assume God is incredibly clear and easily understood at all times. The entire Bible shows us otherwise. So why is this?
Because it leaves alot of room for the heart and mind to develop and pursue it's own lusts and passions with justification.
The Catholic Church claims to be able to over-ride this procedure.
How many Bible characters lived flawless lives? Almost NONE. Why is that? Because there is always room for the heart - be it Good or Bad.
Here's one of my favourite Bible verses:
Matthew 24:24
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
God is always working through bits of chaos. How was Peter and Paul's life? How was Mary's life? How was Moses or Abraham's life?
God uses chaos and variety for growth and potential. I meet Christians all the time who claim "God spoke to them!" I usually laugh and wait for the chaos.
I have yet to find 2 historical theologians who agree on everything.
I dare you to find 2 Popes who agree on absolutely everything. God leaves us a whole lot of grey areas. This is where he often does his best work.
Like I said: "I'm not a protestant or a Catholic. Just a Guy who loves Jesus and his Word."
Bryn "tapping out" means I'm done. I enjoyed the convo. but its not gonna bear any fruit so why continue. How does the pope interpret proverbs 26:4?
Interesting verse Luke:Proverbs 26:4
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
Do some people assume that when we get to Heaven there will be two lines: A Catholic and a Protestant line? There is just the line with Jesus at the end of it. I'm sure even the Pope doesn't get his own line.
to be honest Bryn, the moment you admitted your ignorance of church history you disqualified yourself from this discussion. I have shown you a bishop of Rome who taught the opposite of Papal succession. I have shown you the history of fraudulent documentation in the history of the Roman Catholic church. I have shown you the evidence of the early churches general knowledge of the NT documents prior to the counsel of Carthage. And I have given you a historical survey of the early church and the development of the Roman papacy. Not to mention I have shown you the scriptures that strongly oppose church monarchy (your response to which was three verses that mentioned nothing about church government, unless you extremely read into them the popes interpretation.) At this point, I have nothing more to say. I am going to continue to study the subject I am currently reading Bruce Shelley's volume on church history and am hoping to get my hands on "Christianity the first three thousand years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch, which is supposed to be Tue cream of the crop as far as recent volumes go. my advice to you is hang up the towel on this discussion until you have studied and found yourself approved. but that's just advice. in reality, you will probably continue to twist scripture, misquote church fathers and copy and paste forged church documents in order to keep your ego intact, and then at the end of the day sit back and think your right. instead of finding out what is actually true and allowing it govern you.
P.s. you asked earlier how do we interpret the scriptures as protestants.... my answer is "the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" (John 16:13) ... you see, Jesus left us with a teacher his name is the Holy Spirit. We trust him to guide us into proper understanding of the scriptures because he's the one who inspired it (see 2 TIM 3:16).
tap tap tap.
The key verse that must be taken into account here is Romans 3:1-2, which says that unto the Jews were commited the oracles of God. The “oracles” refer to written Scripture, and it clearly states that the Jews were the ones who would write Scripture. Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in the original Greek language contain many “Hebrewisms,” meaning that though the writer is writing Greek, he is using a Hebrew word order. Basically, he is writing the kind of Greek written by Greek-speaking Jews rather than Greek-speaking Gentiles.
Furthermore, he also writes in a Jewish way or style. For example, he is very careful to write that when people go to Jerusalem, it is always “up” to Jerusalem; and when they leave Jerusalem, it is always going “down” from Jerusalem. These are the ways in which Jews write, as opposed to Gentiles.
How do we know that Luke was a Gentile? People often point out that his name is a Gentile name, which is true. However, the name “Paul” is a Gentile name as well, but no one questions Paul's Jewishness.
Furthermore, he also writes in a Jewish way or style. For example, he is very careful to write that when people go to Jerusalem, it is always “up” to Jerusalem; and when they leave Jerusalem, it is always going “down” from Jerusalem. These are the ways in which Jews write, as opposed to Gentiles.
How do we know that Luke was a Gentile? People often point out that his name is a Gentile name, which is true. However, the name “Paul” is a Gentile name as well, but no one questions Paul's Jewishness.
Luke, Now that I’ve done some research, I’d like to respond to your first claim.
Luke wrote: “ I have shown you a bishop of Rome who taught the opposite of Papal succession.”
This shocked me when I first read it. Now it makes sense—in my favor. In the article you quoted from Pope Callistus, he is giving a decree that Bishops--those under him—may not do what he forbids in the article. I think it is appropriate to look at what else Callistus says:
Source: http://www.unitypublishing.com/godski...
“The next Pope is Callistus from 218 to 223 AD. He writes to Bishop Benedictus the following:
"By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles. --- "
(He then decrees laws on fasting and adds) "For it is not meet for the members to be at variance with the head; but, according to the testimony of sacred Scripture, all the members should follow the head. It is matter of doubt, moreover, to no one, that the church of the apostles is the mother of all the churches, from whose ordinances it is not right that you should deviate to any extent. And as the Son of God came to do the Father's will, so shall ye fulfill the will of your mother, which is the Church, the head of which, as has been stated already, is the church of Rome. Wherefore, whatsoever may be done against the discipline of this church, without the decision of justice, cannot on any account be permitted to be held valid."
He reminds them that a decision under the fear or by the command of a prince cannot be valid. He then states:
"I am mindful that I preside over the Church under the name of him whose confession was honored by our Lord Jesus Christ, and whose faith ever destroys all errors. And I understand that I am not at liberty to act otherwise than to expend all my efforts on that cause in which the well-being of the universal Church is at stake. --- For all things cannot otherwise be safe, unless, as far as pertains to the service of the divine office, sacerdotal authority upholds them."
He then writes a letter to all the bishops of Gaul:
"Supported by our authority, check what is injurious, and prohibit what is unlawful. (He goes on to note that he has heard that people are conspiring against their bishops, and even bishops against bishops and so he lays down the law.) "Let no one, again, trespass upon the boundaries of another --- pass not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set. Moreover, let no primate or metropolitan invade the church or parish of a diocesan, or presume to excommunicate or judge anyone belonging to his parish, or do anything without his counsel or judgment; but let him observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us: to wit, that if any metropolitan bishop, except in that which pertains to his own proper parish alone, shall attempt to do anything without the counsel and good will of all the provincial bishops, he will do it at the risk of his position, and what he does in this manner shall be held null and void. --- No primate, no metropolitan, nor any of the other bishops, is at liberty to enter the seat of another --- But if he presume to do otherwise, he shall be condemned. --- For if a man has no power to appoint, how shall he judge. --- And those who hold this opinion are not only in error, but also seem to dispute and act in opposition to the power of the keys committed to the Church, whereof it is said: "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."
Pope Callistus lays down the law that not even a Metropolitan Bishop can cross over into the geographical territory of another bishop, but that he, Callistus, and he alone has the power to judge, since he has the power to appoint the bishops.”
It’s clear to me Pope Callistus is NOT teaching “the opposite of Papal succession”.
Now, if I posted all the quotes from this article:
http://www.unitypublishing.com/godski...
that clearly prove the early church DID accept the Pope’s authority, I would have to paste over 15 pages. So instead, I’ll tell you they can be found in the sections titled ‘THE POPE & THE 2ND & 3RD CENTURIES’ and ‘THE POPE & THE 4th & 5th CENTURIES’, and let you read them on site. The author seems to have reason to know what he is talking about. The article states “Rick, as a layman with 30 years of theological studies, has written many books on apologetics and mystical theology. He lectures on Church history, apologetics, science and discernment. He worked as a Director of Evangelization and has recorded over 40 audio tapes on religious subjects.”
how bout this, if you can show me this passage in Philip Schaffs collection of early church writings I will believe it. that's where took my quote from. but as far as these quotes go, I don't trust them because they come from a catholic source . and they have already proven to be untrustworthy in their handling and quoting of the earliest documents.
is there anywhere in The scriptures where peter, or the church is referred to as the head.?
I had suggested that you read from a non biased perspective, like a secular church history volume. But it clear that you have continued to read from your side of the fence. hence the reason why your still send me Roman Catholic links.
Luke wrote: "I had suggested that you read from a non biased perspective, like a secular church history volume. But it clear that you have continued to read from your side of the fence. hence the reason why you..."I read Catholic, Protestant, and non-Christian sources. I think they all are capable of bringing knowledge to others, and all have their own biases.
Luke wrote: "I had suggested that you read from a non biased perspective, like a secular church history volume. But it clear that you have continued to read from your side of the fence. hence the reason why you..."You ask me to read Protestant things, and then refuse to believe something because I have a Catholic source?? Fine, I'll find it in a Protestant source.
Luke wrote: "I had suggested that you read from a non biased perspective, like a secular church history volume. But it clear that you have continued to read from your side of the fence. hence the reason why you..."Your sources that you have listed are all Protestant.
Alright Luke, here you are. This is a Protestant source quoting Callistus. Source: http://m.biblestudytools.com/history/...
“And those who hold this opinion are not only in error, but also seem to dispute and act in opposition to the power of the keys committed to the Church, whereof it is said: "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." ---Section VI, Second Epistle
“In this, then, we ought to be all of one mind, so that, according to apostolic teaching, we may all say the same thing, and that there be no divisions among us. Let us then be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment;(3) in ready zeal for which work we congratulate ourselves on having your affection as our partner. For it is not meet for the members to be at variance with the head; but, according to the testimony of sacred Scripture,(4) all the members should follow the head. It is matter of doubt, moreover, to no one, that the church of the apostles is the mother of all the churches, from whose ordinances it is not right that you should deviate to any extent. And as the Son of God came to do the Father's will, so shall ye fulfil the will of your mother, which is the Church, the head of which, as has been stated already, is the church of Rome.” ---Section I, First Epistle
This Protestant source also contains it:
http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com...
I can look up Philip Schaff's version of Calistus's First and Second Epistle only if you tell me where it can be found. You didn't give me a book title or a website.
Luke, why are you using the False Decretals to try to disprove the Pope's infalibilty?
Luke wrote: "is there anywhere in The scriptures where peter, or the church is referred to as the head.?"I have already stated them more than once. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Luke wrote: "you win"Seriously?! I've never officially won before on a debate thread. Thank you for giving me the honor. BTW, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Update: I'm preparing my response to your claim of Chruch document foregry at the moment. It's coming along nicely. I'm learning so much through my research. Thank you for motivating me to learn more about the faith!
“For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.”---Jesus, Matthew 17:20 I read this today, and I wanted to post it, because at least for me, it was very uplifting promise. Personally I have many mountains, but one of them we all share on this thread—the lies that prevent us from knowing God’s truth. In faith we can move all mountains. . . . cool. :D
“Alleluia. Give glory to the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.” Psalm 106:1
Good stuff Bryn:" but one of them we all share on this thread—the lies that prevent us from knowing God’s truth."
The problem with dealing with lies is that the liar is always confronted with the truth - doesn't mean they usually admit their flaws though. :D
Rod wrote: "Good stuff Bryn:" but one of them we all share on this thread—the lies that prevent us from knowing God’s truth."
The problem with dealing with lies is that the liar is always confronted with the..."
Too true. God help us.
Luke wrote: "I have shown you the history of fraudulent documentation in the history of the Roman Catholic church.On another thread, I'd be happy to discuss document forgery in the Catholic Church as a general topic, but on this thread, I must insist we stay some what on topic, and talk about document forgery as it relates to papal infallibility.
So, is papal infallibility something that the Church made up via foraged documents? The Donation of Constantine (13th century)? The False Decretals (9th century)? These are the earliest documents I could find that support papal infallibility and have been declared or fakes. So what proof before the 9th century supports my belief that the early Christians actually believed in papal infallibility?
I have been studying this for several weeks, and I've found a lot. However, there is still more research I'd like to do. Four days ago, I got a phone call from a relative of mine who has several young children, who told me she had suffered a bad back injury, would on bed rest for three weeks, and could use some help around the house/with the kids. I agreed to help her, so until she's off bed rest, I'll have little to no time to study church history/read through documents. However, I would like to post what I have found so far now. When my relative is off bed rest, I'll be more than happy to continue my more than lengthy responses to your post, 270, including a better response to your theory that papal infallibility is based on foraged documents. Your patience with the length of time it takes me to research and then posts responses is very much appreciated.
So, here is what I have found so far. Most of these quotes I have found from friends or websites. Some of these I have had time to check over for authenticity, and some I have not. I trust you'll be sure to tell me if any of the quotes I did not have time to background check are indeed fakes.
"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
"[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).
"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).
"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
"If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See" (Letters2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).
"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1).
"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).
"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).
"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
(continued) "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).
"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
"we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable", and that other churches however remote did not regard any matter as final until it was reviewed and confirmed "by the total authority of this [church]".--Pope Innocent 1, Council of Carthage 417
The records of the ecumenical councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon (451), Constantinople III, and Nicaea II (787) contain many references to the pope or the Apostolic See as "father," "head of all Churches," "archbishop of all the Churches," "spiritual mother," "sacred head," and so forth. It was no ninth-century innovation to claim that anything done against the will of the Apostolic See was invalid. Fifth-century historians Sozomen and Socrates, in separate histories of the fourth-century Church, record in similar words that "an ecclesiastical canon commands that the Churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome." Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, declares in his Letter to Eutyches (449) that cases of faith cannot be tried "without the consent of the bishop of Rome." At the Council of Chalcedon, papal legates—without opposition—declare the holding of a council without the pope's authority to be a "thing which had never taken place nor can take place." The Council of Ephesus declares itself "compelled" by the canons and by the decision of Pope Celestine to depose the heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The pope was recognized in both East and West as having the authority to hear appeals from bishops, to depose them, and to restore them to their sees, as proved by the course of history and by the canons of the Council of Sardica (343).---Steven O'Rilely
Lastly, your prayers for my injured relative would be very much appreaciated. God Bless.
It took me 4(!!!) hours last night to catch up on this thread.
While I liked the amount of information that was present (even if I skipped all the links) I can't see it reaching a conclusion. Bryn, you take the Roman Catholic Church at its word, and you have the pope when seated on a seat as plenty proof while Protestants do not. Whatever argument I would try to come up with can always be dismissed by a statement from a church official - which is good for you but not for me. Even so, here is my (correct, of course) opinion of Church and salvation. The church cannot save anyone, neither can it provide any assurance of it. Concerning the pope, in my opinion he is a man that fails even on Peter's chair. Neither can he provide any service for me - Jesus is the mediator between God and man.
Because of these reasons I will not accept the Catholic Church as my church. As long as Jesus is the source of salvation instead of the church you attend, then I don't think the church you attend will bother me. I think it's good to know that whether you are saved or not (and we both agree that salvation is important) affects you much more than the church.
I'm like the thief on the cross alone with Jesus. :D
@ Pavlo"While I liked the amount of information that was present (even if I skipped all the links) I can't see it reaching a conclusion."
I haven't finished my response, but my point that I'm illustrating is that the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility did not come from foraged documents such as the False Decretals. Whether you believe in papal infallibility or not, I do not believe the claim that papal infallibility came from foraged documents is well grounded in historical facts, from what I have read so far. As a result, I reject this theory as false. That is my conclusion.
"Bryn, you take the Roman Catholic Church at its word, and you have the pope when seated on a seat as plenty proof while Protestants do not. Whatever argument I would try to come up with can always be dismissed by a statement from a church official - which is good for you but not for me."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'd like to note what the only reason I take the Roman Catholic Church at it's word is. I take the Church at it's word because I believe it was established by Christ, and as a Christian, I consider it my obligation and privilege to be a part of the organization my Savior founded to guide me and my siblings in Christ through the lies and deceit of the world. I take it at it's word because I believe that it is guided from error by the Holy Spirit. I take it at it's word, because the Catholic Church is the only Church that believes God doesn't leave his people to interpret the Bible, and guess who has the right interpretations. And I don't believe the Savior that died for me cares enough for me that he wouldn't leave me to search and guess when it comes to my faith. My Savior is all wise and all loving, and because of this, my Savior gave me an infallible Church for which I am extremely grateful for.
"Even so, here is my (correct, of course) opinion of Church and salvation. The church cannot save anyone, neither can it provide any assurance of it."
The Catholic Church, as in the human members alone, with their own authority, cannot save anyone. Jesus, all powerful God, can choose to work through humans to bring salvation. Just as the Father chose to manifest his glory through creation in Genesis, just as the Father chose to open the gates of Heaven by sending his Son to take on human nature, Jesus has chosen to offer salvation through the Roman Catholic Church, which he established while he was on earth. The Church can only declare who is for sure in Heaven with the infallibility of the Pope, and with ample evidence (miracles, etc.) that occur, that could only be sent by those in Heaven. The people the Church declares are in Heaven, we call Saints.
"Concerning the pope, in my opinion he is a man that fails even on Peter's chair. Neither can he provide any service for me - Jesus is the mediator between God and man. "
Jesus is the mediator between God and man. But there are other mediators that lead us to Jesus. The Pope is not a mediator. He is a man that Jesus places in our lives to lead us to truth.
"Because of these reasons I will not accept the Catholic Church as my church. As long as Jesus is the source of salvation instead of the church you attend, then I don't think the church you attend will bother me. I think it's good to know that whether you are saved or not (and we both agree that salvation is important) affects you much more than the church."
I will pray for you. I firmly believe in the freedom of religion, so by all means, go ahead and choose not to be Catholic. However, just as firmly I believe you are rejecting the Church that teaches all truths, and joining one that teaches some truths, and some errors.
Bryn, as long as you trust Jesus, I won't worry. We have very different perspectives on religious issues, so I don't think we will reach a conclusion on the Catholic Church specifically. It is alright to trust a person for guidance, as I trust my pastor to explain some fuzzy area, as you may trust your priest or the pope in your struggles to truth. About you praying for me, I would like you not to pray that I may see the Catholic Church as good, but that I may know the truth. God bless.
bryn quote:" And I don't believe the Savior that died for me cares enough for me that he wouldn't leave me to search and guess when it comes to my faith."
Why not? How many Bible characters had to search and guess for things and truth? The problem is Bryn you are seeing this problem for what you perceive is the INSIDE.
What about people outside of Christianity? How does a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim go about finding this Jesus? Do they have to search and guess? How about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? They make the same claim as you - how dangerous is that?
I avoid all that by going right to the word of God. Which is what Moses and the Prophets had.
Luke 16:31 "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead."
Pavlo wrote: "Bryn, as long as you trust Jesus, I won't worry. We have very different perspectives on religious issues, so I don't think we will reach a conclusion on the Catholic Church specifically. It is alri..."I will pray that you find truth. God Bless Pavlo.
Rod wrote: "bryn quote:" And I don't believe the Savior that died for me cares enough for me that he wouldn't leave me to search and guess when it comes to my faith."
Why not? How many Bible characters had t..."
Perhaps I said that wrong. Let me rephrase: The Bible tells us Jesus established a Church. He intended people to be taught by that Church (Go therefore and make disciples of all nations). Jesus never said, "Here is the Bible, go interpret it. Jesus never said "Study the Bible, and the teachings you are lead to believe are true." He told Peter to feed his sheep. He said that "Whoever hears you hears me."
Protestantism's idea that the Bible is meant to be interpreted personally by everyone who picks it up is not only unbiblical but illogical. You can't have two people come to oppostie conclusions and both be right. Are you saying you believe Jesus gave you the Bible to interpret without having any way of knowing who's interpretation is right????
2 Peter 1:20 "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
With regards to Muslims and Hindus, etc., they don't have to search and guess when it comes to haveing access to definite truth any more than I do. But like me, they must search for the source of that truth.
As for the Bible characters, I agree they did live in a time when they couldn't find definite truth. But that was before Jesus. Jesus changed a lot. I must ask, "How many Bible chracters taught or lived Sola Scriptura?" None.
I can tell that Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses are fake Churches because they teach things contrary to what Jesus taught, and they were established long after Jesus's Church came into existence.
BTW, that Bible quote, Luke 16:31, does NOT say "If they do not hear the truth of scrpture, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead." Moses and the Prphets were non-scriptural sources of guidance for the Jews.
Bryn quote:"Moses and the Prophets were non-scriptural sources of guidance for the Jews."
Ummmmmh? When Jesus told that story - Moses and the Prophets were dead and gone. All they had left were...THEIR WRITINGS. Last time I checked: that was SCRIPTURE!
C.J. quote:"You would think God would appear to clear all this up considering all the confusion."
But it is clear C.J.. To many of us!
Confusion is what happens when man doesn't accept God's word.
C.J. quote:
"So the world shall continue in religious chaos and confusion."
Have you not read the end of the Bible C.J.? Haven't you figured out how the confusion plays into God's plan?
Go read the WHOLE Bible then come back to us. You missed the entire plot.
Rod wrote: "Bryn quote:"Moses and the Prophets were non-scriptural sources of guidance for the Jews."
Ummmmmh? When Jesus told that story - Moses and the Prophets were dead and gone. All they had left were....."
I was refering to when they were alive and teaching. But yes, ther writings are in scripture, of course.
You didn't answer my question curiously...(Are you saying you believe Jesus gave you the Bible to interpret without having any way of knowing who's interpretation is right????)
My church history prof (who got his doctorate at a Catholic university, btw) said the best early church book is WHC Frend's The Rise of Christianity. It probably qualifi..."
By secular I mean written by a non-Christian author. Non-Christian authors (unless former Christians) are less liely to have have been indoctrinated with the teachings of a given Chritian denomination, so I value their opinions when researching things like this. It's interesting to compare their opinion to the different denominations'.
Thanks for the reconmendtations.