A few questions for Protestants

[rturner76]

I would like to understand what you are saying b4 commenting. Coud you re-word the highlighted part?

I think I get what you're saying but want to make sure. Thanks. I am wary of global... anything. And the liberalism in the Church doesn't portend a good outcome even if we had one

What I am referring to are the ecumenical conferences where representatives, mostly Bishops representing the region basically, are the boss of bosses for that country to region. Between the major early churches like Jerusalem, Ethiopia, Eastern Europe, etc. Under Emperor Constantine, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. That created what is often referred to as the "Ecumenical counsels." which were tasked to compile all of the divinely inspired materials that most of the churches were already using and circulating these materials. They eventually organized it by book and chapter. Just a little background in consideration of the statement you requested that I reword (it was a mess I admit).

a global community of people with education and experience who come to a consensus, rather a gifted speaker saying "forget what you know, it's really this way."

What I mean by this statement is, As global Ecumenical councils were gathered, they debated and voted on what was to be considered divinely inspired writing. They also would vote on doctrine if a Bishop or Priest began preaching on some unapproved interpretation. The main point I was trying to convey. The reason that I ended up where I am spiritually is that I believe more in the consensus of the global community of the early churches than a denomination (or non-denomination) who broke from the global church because they found that their study of theology was in disagreement with the global church or more specifically, the early church.

I'm sure the people who would form their own opinions and denominations are learned scholars, they didn't (and don't) lack education and understanding. What they don't have is a global consensus of Bishops other than the Bishops that are trained to follow that particular denomination's teaching and interpretation of scripture.

Does that make sense at all? I can give some examples of what I'm talking about if I didn't properly clarify.

 

[jas3]

I want to preface this by saying that your position is generally correct, but there are some details that need clarifying:

That created what is often referred to as the "Ecumenical counsels." which were tasked to compile all of the divinely inspired materials that most of the churches were already using and circulating these materials. They eventually organized it by book and chapter. Just a little background in consideration of the statement you requested that I reword (it was a mess I admit).

What I mean by this statement is, As global Ecumenical councils were gathered, they debated and voted on what was to be considered divinely inspired writing. They also would vote on doctrine if a Bishop or Priest began preaching on some unapproved interpretation.

No ecumenical council, at least not in the first millennium, determined the canon of Scripture or even debated it. And there were not really debates and votes like you would see in a modern legislature (or modern Protestant general conferences) where people make arguments in favor of or against a position and then a bare majority decides which position to take; that's the view that Dan Brown promoted in The Da Vinci Code to say that Jesus' divinity just happened to win a "relatively close vote" as if it were debatable at Nicaea.
In reality, the bishops were almost unanimous on what the orthodox faith was, and the emperors called councils with a particular result they expected to achieve.

I'm sure the people who would form their own opinions and denominations are learned scholars, they didn't (and don't) lack education and understanding. What they don't have is a global consensus of Bishops other than the Bishops that are trained to follow that particular denomination's teaching and interpretation of scripture.

This is exactly right, although more often than not, the Protestant denominations of today reject even the existence of the office of "bishop," which makes it extra ironic that they hold to a creed that was written by bishops at a council of bishops.

 

[timothyu]

Rabbis constantly argued the points of their scriptures even to this day. Even God gives us free choice. Seems like the gentiles are the ones to demand everyone follows a controlled narrative, free choice punishable by regulation, be it secular or religion..

 

[jas3]

Rabbis constantly argued the points of their scriptures even to this day. Even God gives us free choice. Seems like the gentiles are the ones to demand everyone follows a controlled narrative, free choice punishable by regulation, be it secular or religion..

What's your point?

 

[timothyu]

What's your point?

Not a good way to run His Kingdom.. unless of course the intention is merely to run their own.

 

[jas3]

Not a good way to run His Kingdom.. unless of course the intention is merely to run their own.

What's not a good way to run the Kingdom? Ecumenical councils?

 

[rturner76]

No ecumenical council, at least not in the first millennium, determined the canon of Scripture or even debated it.

Yes, my retelling of history admittedly has a few holes from me trying to bang out a response without taking the proper care to clarify my statement. You are exactly right. Ecumenical counsels did not appear until Emperor Constantine organized one of the first major synod where the global church(s) decided what books would make up the Old and New Testaments. The main thing I was trying to convey was that I prefer to follow a global consensus of the bishops of the ancient churches rather than someone coming along 1,200 or so years later and deciding they got it all wrong even though they for the most part follow the theology of Augustine who was considered one of the most important theologians to come along at that point.

 

[discombobulated1]

You do realize He was not talking of the boogey man but of the Kingdom defeating death which was referenced by the 'gates of hell', the end to the eternal death man suffered before the Gospel of the Kingdom. You however are free to carry on your tradition. I will believe death has been defeated.

I've been gone for awhile, but just the same, I read the last few entries here and frankly, still do not understand what you are saying.

Maybe you could re-word, for people who do not know your ways of speaking/writing

 

[discombobulated1]

Yes, my retelling of history admittedly has a few holes from me trying to bang out a response without taking the proper care to clarify my statement. You are exactly right. Ecumenical counsels did not appear until Emperor Constantine organized one of the first major synod where the global church(s) decided what books would make up the Old and New Testaments. The main thing I was trying to convey was that I prefer to follow a global consensus of the bishops of the ancient churches rather than someone coming along 1,200 or so years later and deciding they got it all wrong even though they for the most part follow the theology of Augustine who was considered one of the most important theologians to come along at that point.

Thanks for clarifying.

A lot of non Catholics seem to think that there was so much mayhem and corruption in the ancient Church that we can't trust anything it said at any given time. Well, that's a protestant thought, as it were, and one we can understand (even if not Protestant). But the fact is that people get these thoughts because we are SO far removed from... what Christ's Church once was (should be). There are 500 long years that happened after Luther divided the Church (and others divided it further by dissenting from him [Luther]).

Well, whether we understand how Protestants think or not, they are just flat out wrong on many issues. Catholics can be wrong on (this or that), but we do have a Church that taught the same thing century after century--until recently.

Vatican II ruined it all. But a lot of true Catholics are keeping the True Faith alive (SSPX, the Sedevacantists)

 

[rturner76]

A lot of non Catholics seem to think that there was so much mayhem and corruption in the ancient Church that we can't trust anything it said at any given time. Well, that's a protestant thought, as it were, and one we can understand (even if not Protestant). But the fact is that people get these thoughts because we are SO far removed from... what Christ's Church once was (should be). There are 500 long years that happened after Luther divided the Church (and others divided it further by dissenting from him [Luther]).

Well, whether we understand how Protestants think or not, they are just flat out wrong on many issues. Catholics can be wrong on (this or that), but we do have a Church that taught the same thing century after century--until recently.

Vatican II ruined it all. But a lot of true Catholics are keeping the True Faith alive (SSPX, the Sedevacantists)

Yes, Vatican II stepped on a lot of traditional practices. However, the Church does believe that Christ continues to provide revelations to the Church through time. though we lost some things in Vatican II, most of it was procedural. The Church is not converting as many people and fewer and fewer men are going to Seminary. I don't think that this is a result of Vatican II, I believe the Church had to make some changes (Like allowing Mass to be held in different languages for example. With a Protestant Church across the street, the Church had to "dumb it down" a bit. Most people could not understand Latin Mass so to compete, I can see why God revealed to them that they should make The Church more accessible to converts. With so many leaving The Church in adulthood, they had to make it easier to be Catholic or go broke. Like I said, I don't think they changed much dogma but they decided to lay off the guilt and focus more on the good news and the golden rule. That's just my view on it.

People in the Church did scandalous things. They took rules like an indulgence and turned it into a business. From my understanding, it was under Pope Urban II that first used indulgence in order to pardon a man IF they participated in a Crusade and made confession. I don't remember who the Pope was but he was determined to build a new Cathedral (was it St Peter's?). He began to allow to take cash rather than an act of contrition and confession. That's when it all got corrupted and made Luther split off from his Church. Personally, I believe in the course of time, a new Pope would have cleaned things up. I know that at first, Luther tried to make changes within the Church but it wasn't happening fast enough. You know the Church takes a lot of time, committees, and votes on different levels to change anything. That's what's different about Protestants. If the Pastor doesn't make the changes people want, they just start their own church.

 

[HopeSings]

I'm a disciple not catholic or protestant

 

[Valletta]

Vatican II ruined it all. But a lot of true Catholics are keeping the True Faith alive (SSPX, the Sedevacantists)

Vatican II didn't ruin anything. There are some beautiful well-thought out documents. What happened was the Church had already been infiltrated by the culture. Instead of teaching the faith and emphasizing prayer many in the Church adopted more of the feel-good philosophies of the culture. When Vatican II came out many radical changes were made, much for the worse, while proponents falsely claimed that was what Vatican II was all about. That was a lie. Universities removed bishops from their boards, Catholic hospitals too, and now most are not really Catholic. Catholic schools quite teaching the Catechism. It was an opportunity for evil, just like one of our political parties takes advantage for more control any time there is a disaster. The Church requires Sunday mass attendance, with few holy days included. That's not enough to combat the evil in society. We need to learn our faith and spend time in prayer, not just once a week. When a priest leaves the faith, as with lay people, the problem is almost always caused by the lack of a good prayer life.

 

[Billy Evmur]

Thank you for your response, but I couldn't help but notice you too failed to answer the question I feel is very significant to this thread.

" For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no?"

Have a Blessed day!

The church is is the pillar and ground of the truth

... you believe the Roman Catholic Church ... that's what we protest

 

[Valletta]

The church is is the pillar and ground of the truth

... you believe the Roman Catholic Church ... that's what we protest

The "Catholic Church" is headed by Jesus.

 

[timothyu]

Anyone can lay claim to the name Jesus but it is their fruits that show who they follow, Jesus or a religion. I saw an argument recently where one argued their point using scripture to back it while the other used the teachings of their church. Both claimed to be right, but in my opinion one followed truth from God while the other followed the regulations and rituals of an institution of man (their truth). No comparison.

 

[Billy Evmur]

The "Catholic Church" is headed by Jesus.

Ignatius taught that bishops are to be obeyed as though they were the very Lord Himself ... that was founding of the Catholic church. The Pope is the acclaimed head of the church ... even if you say on earth it is still awful stuff.

 

[Valletta]

Ignatius taught that bishops are to be obeyed as though they were the very Lord Himself ... that was founding of the Catholic church. The Pope is the acclaimed head of the church ... even if you say on earth it is still awful stuff.

If you read Isaiah 22 you will see that there was a type of prime minister in the Davidic kingdom. When the king was absent he gave the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. As a matter of fact, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, Jesus gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom, not to any other Apostle. The Word of God is not such awful stuff.

 

[Valletta]

Anyone can lay claim to the name Jesus but it is their fruits that show who they follow, Jesus or a religion. I saw an argument recently where one argued their point using scripture to back it while the other used the teachings of their church. Both claimed to be right, but in my opinion one followed truth from God while the other followed the regulations and rituals of an institution of man (their truth). No comparison.

Holy Scripture is 100% compatible with Catholic teaching. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not was rejected. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

 

[Ceallaigh]

If you read Isaiah 22 you will see that there was a type of prime minister in the Davidic kingdom. When the king was absent he gave the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. As a matter of fact, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, Jesus gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom, not to any other Apostle. The Word of God is not such awful stuff.

The problem with the Davidic kingdom is God was supposed to be King of Israel, not a man. When Israel demanded a human king like the pagan nations had, God told Samuel 'they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting Me' (1 Samuel 8:7). So what became the Davidic kingdom after Saul, was actually a result of man going against the will and plan of God for His people.

 

[Billy Evmur]

If you read Isaiah 22 you will see that there was a type of prime minister in the Davidic kingdom. When the king was absent he gave the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. As a matter of fact, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, Jesus gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom, not to any other Apostle. The Word of God is not such awful stuff.

Is then the Lord absent from His kingdom? ever? He is arisen and ascended and He has sent the Holy Ghost, He is always present when two or three of His people are met together in His name.

Not to any other apostle? that's right, unto Peter. not to anybody else, not to any imaginary successor. The church is built upon the testimony and foundation of Peter "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God" all who truly believe this belong to Him. I don't believe Francis does even believe this, I think there have been others who have not truly believed.

The foundation of Christ is built upon a Rock, not rocks. If there were such a thing as a succession [Jesus says nothing about a succession] there would need to be a succession of foundations.

If the present Roman church was upon the foundation Peter laid it would believe the same doctrines as Peter. It does not, the Roman church is as far removed from Peter the apostle as it is possible to be. Peter was no sacrementalist. He did not dress in gaudy senator robes and carry on rituals and litanies.

I am not saying at all that there are no Catholics who are genuine followers and believers in Christ. But the structures are corrupt and they have corrupted the true doctrines.