The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

StealthRolex wrote: »

You "feel" it is inaccurate.

I find my church to be overall in assent to traditional Christian teaching, and I find that it allows a good space for exploring the Biblical text. I also find that a number of other Christian groups external to church allow for people to do this.

Although, I would argue that such Christian groups are merely a logical extension of the church into areas of life where it can be beneficial.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Have you actually researched it and looked at it forensically and objectively to see if your feelings are warranted?

I've given a fair bit of time to discussing it with friends who are that way inclined, and I've also given a fair bit of time to consulting the Scriptures and making sense of them for myself, which is an ongoing process.

I'm willing to be shown rather clearly how I am mistaken, but I haven't been convinced as of yet that I am not a participant in the Christian faith. I've grown much in my walk with God, and I continue to grow. This indicates to me that my current role in the Christian community is profitable.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You use the words "reasonable" and "inaccurate". Well inaccurate is just a slight modification from accurate.
So what is more reasonable than a slight inaccuracy?

Have I said slight? - There are a number of issues that I just cannot agree with the RCC on, because I believe them to be contrary to Scripture. I do believe that there is much that I can find agreement with the RCC on in respect to our common faith in Jesus Christ.

If you want a document, that I do admire. It is the Articles of Religion by Richard Hooker, one of the key figures in Anglicanism who argued that the Church of England should be a via media between the former Roman Catholicism and the Puritanism of their day*. The differences between Anglicanism at it's infancy from that of Roman Catholicism are listed. The similarities are affirmed in some respects, in that Anglicanism also recognises the 5 minor and 2 major sacraments.

*N.B - This does not mean that I do not respect other non-Anglican writers and thinkers, indeed it does not mean that I do not respect Catholic thinkers. I just think that Richard Hooker in the Articles of Religion best sums up what I currently believe.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think it is reasonable for you to be more specific here. As you are only talking about slight inaccuracies maybe we can explore these areas to see if there is any genuine concern.

Read the link I provided.

StealthRolex wrote: »

btw the "reasonable" assessment you find elsewhere are interpretations made under whose authority again? I can't recall who your spiritual director is - maybe you mentioned him before and I missed it - sorry.

Christians are urged to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. It's a serious matter. My spiritual director is Jesus Christ, whose path I am to walk along. Jesus Christ is the exemplar of all human behaviour.

My view would be that the church is subject to the Scriptures and the example of Jesus Christ, rather than the Scriptures being subject to the church.

ISAW wrote: »

Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife

Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes.

How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist.

In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source]
What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family.

So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.

'Proper use' means according to the manufacturer's instructions. The data on failure rates supplied by companies refers to condom tests in laboratories. The real world is not a lab and the condom failure rate is greater outside the lab.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach the acceptability of condom use for AIDS/STD prevention or the prevention of conception.

JimiTime wrote: »

Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit. If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.' Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.

The Church always taught that abortion was gravely sinful. There was some debate at certain times about what kind of sin it was, but it was always a sin. Science informed the Church definitively on the nature of the sin. There is no contradiction therefore on the Church teaching. I said this already in a previous thread...

ISAW wrote: »

As regards jurisprudence and the RCC might I draw a parallel with the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and Sadducees? One bunch were interested in rule by the letter of the law and in mixing with the rich and powerful another were closer to the people and more "bottom up" and believed more in less literal things and oral tradition. There is similar in the Church today. Authoritarians and Pastoralists you might call them.

That is an unjustified and indefensible dichotomy contrary to the Church teaching. A good priest or bishop or Pope is both a teacher of morals and faith and a pastor of souls. There is in no way a conflict between the two and it is only through liberal heretics' monstrous poison rhetoric over the last 40 years than an idea like that would be propagated.

JimiTime wrote: »

I welcome discussion, disagreements, arguements etc from those of all denomination and none. However, it is of no benefit whatsoever, if someone comes in and soapboxes and THAT is what I am 'anti'. This is a multi denominational fora, and as such, we should all respect that the reason we are here is that we have a common denominator. I.E. Jesus Christ. Like it or not, Luther, Calvin or the magisterium have no authority here. So accept that our common denominator is Jesus, and reason with HIM in mind. That way you are appealing to ALL contributors.

A Catholic can never accept that premise.

PDN wrote: »

Because science does not claim never to make mistakes.

My point is that all denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, evolve. They get some things right and they get some things wrong - and hopefully they eradicate, rather than compound, the errors over a period of time. Such a pragmatic view, obviously, is incompatible with the views of those who argue that the Church is without error.

Therefore it is logical to ask whether such infallibility only applies to the Church today, or whether it applied in the past. If it can be demonstrated that the Church contradicted itself in the past, then few of us will have any confidence that it is perfect now.

The Catholic Church has never taught false teachings on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years. We have been over this already and I have addressed your previous claims. Do you have any more?

ISAW wrote: »

You mean two other posters say "The Catholic Church position is X" and I say "the catholic point of view is Y and Y precludes X" . The thing is if you want to know the Church position and whether X and Y are mutually exclusive then I suggest you write to your local Bishop because what people claim is just their opinion but some other posters here accept that those in authority with "ordinary power" have the authority to issue a nihil obsat or imprimatur on such opinions. At least then you will know an official position.

You could just look in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

lmaopml wrote: »

I believe there are many people who perhaps are just brought up in their tradition and follow it....and then there are others who are curious as to the 'whys' of things, which is fine too, depending on our approach...

I guess the 'Magesterium' is the starting point, and researching the early Church history...

There is no harm in seeking greater understanding. Indeed it is good.

For a Catholic, the Magisterium is a sure and certain guide in matters of faith and morals and we cannot go wrong if we follow that guide. It is the guide the Lord Himself has given us.

It is not a matter, for the Catholic, of looking at what the Magisterium has taught, and looking at the Church Fathers, and then coming to our own conclusion. That would be protestantistic in approach and not faithfully Catholic. I'm not sure that was what you were implying, but that would be erroneous.

Jakkass wrote: »

So one cannot come into this forum, and recognise that it is a multi-denominational forum rather than an RCC forum?

It is evident that if you're talking to people who don't share your assumptions, and not substantiating them, it is going to be very difficult to discuss indeed. Merely saying that the RCC and the Magisterium are not to be questioned in any way isn't going to settle the matter for a lot of people.

The problem is a question of epistemology more so than substance at this point. The method in which you are deriving your conclusion is different to how others, including lmaopml if I am interpreting your post correctly is.

For the Catholic, the Magisterium is the authority. The non-Catholic obviously won't accept that. They might be convinced otherwise, perhaps. What I intended to point out is that the Catholic cannot come on here and accept that the Magisterium has no authority. They can acknowledge that others regard it as such whilst all the while holding that it is the authority.

smurfhousing wrote: »

For the Roman Catholic, the Magisterium is the authority. The non-Roman Catholic obviously won't accept that.

Edit and emphasis.

It may be the authority for Roman Catholics, but in dialoguing with non-Roman Catholics it might be prudent to think that it might not bear the same level of authority for them as it does for you.

It would certainly save on the number of posts where people have accused others who have disagreed with them as being "rebellious" to the "One True Church". It is evident, that the people you are referring to don't believe that the RCC is the One True Church, or that the Pope has sole authority on matters of faith and morality.