nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

New mega thread time!

We're sick of the board being taken over by numerous threads where the same rather tired arguments and entrenched positions keep getting rehearsed over and over again.

So, if Protestants and Roman Catholics want to debate the merits of their respective positions this is the place to do it. Any new threads started for this purpose will be locked.

It is OK, in other threads, to say "as a non-Catholic I believe this" or "as a Catholic I don't believe this". That's fine, and people can note your position. But once it moves into arguing against Protestantism or against Catholicism then this is the thread to bring it to.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

So, are Catholics right thinking people, in your humble opinion?

Yes, which is why most Catholics don't trust the Church to do their interpretation for them. That's why so many of your co-religionists ignore a lot of stuff the Church says.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

Yes, which is why most Catholics don't trust the Church to do their interpretation for them. That's why so many of your co-religionists ignore a lot of stuff the Church says.

No, that's just being 'human'....which the Catholic church is full up to the brim of....and not 'perfect' people...It's 'for' sinners - and points towards the saints as examples of really good and holy people...

The church is meant to be open to sinners and saints alike...the idea is to provide the tools to make saints out of sinners...It's the tool that Jesus left us, he never abandoned us to self valuation...

If you believe that outward appearance justifies a person, then the Catholic faith is not for you...it's entirely for sinners to try to seek out the truth and roots of the faith...should they feel inclined, or feel the necessity..

smurfhousing

lmaopml wrote: »

From a personal point of view I think faith and reason can go hand in hand. I believe there is a 'magesterium' not because they 'say' they are, if I believed everything I was told from a child who was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic school and had very little interest at the time.... I may or may not decide to really look! and still end up ok. - but the way God made me begs me to make 'sense' iykwim..in a world full of opinion and noise...I found in a subjective way that 'sense'....and never expected to find it right where I started out..Go figure..lol...

..that's where having good discussion comes in..

The Church teaches that faith and reason go together and are not in conflict.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

I've not read this

, but I am sure it is an excellent summary: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't want to side track the thread, but science most certainly does not say that.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/philosophies/epistemology.htm
The holy grail of positivists is the identification of generalized laws of the universe.

philologos

We could nearly have a megathread for the difference in RCC thinking between those who are willing to discuss and explore valid criticism of church heirarchy and really question why things are done a certain way, and those who won't even entertain such a discussion at all.

StealthRolex: Could you respond to my last post I'm interested to see what you'll make of it.

vodafoneproblem

As per PDN's earlier thread suggestion, I've started a feedback thread suggesting there should be a Catholic mod on the Christianity forum. Everyone is free to give their opinion on the matter.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66602650#post66602650

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

We could nearly have a megathread for the difference in RCC thinking between those who are willing to discuss and explore valid criticism of church heirarchy and really question why things are done a certain way, and those who won't even entertain such a discussion at all.

StealthRolex: Could you respond to my last post I'm interested to see what you'll make of it.

I think that Stealth is in his bed sleeping soundly.

In his absence, I propose something interesting. Perhaps you could somehow justify the Protestant rejection of the Papacy, given the Catholic claim that the Papacy was instituted by Christ Himself, so in rejecting the Pope, you are rejecting Christ, in a very important way, which pertains to salvation itself, because of the rejection of Magisterial teachings on faith and morals. That is pretty serious, so you would need very solid reasons to reject the Papacy. It would be interesting to look at that.

The reason I have chosen the Papacy is because Catholics hold that it is something willed by God, whereas, regardless of what they think about it, Protestants reject the Papacy as being unnecessary, irrelevant, or not important. Of course there are a hundred and one different topics that could be chosen, but you have to keep the discussion focussed, so I have taken the liberty of offering a focal point for the proceedings.

As would seem fair, I put present here a scriptural defense of the Papacy, showing how it is indeed willed by Christ according to the Scriptures.

I could lift the stuff off this website and pretend it is my own scholarly work, but in the interest of not playing such games, I'll just post the link and you can read it yourself: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/booklets.php [click on 'text' for 'Apostolic Authority and the Pope'.]

This is the core of the Scriptural basis for my belief in the Papacy. Of course, you could have a look at the tracts on Catholic Answers for more detailed arguments. [ http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp ]

What I am interested in, is the personal reasoning for why anyone would reject the Papacy, given the arguments for its necessity. Of course, you could, at this point, just post a link to some Protestant site with a comprehensive counter-argument...

Edit: I should add, that when I was exploring Catholicism, I did examine the arguments against the Church on lots of different Protestant apologetics websites. So there is nothing of any substance that you can present me with that I haven't already seen and read, examined, considered etc... as regards Catholic Faith and Morals, nature of the Church, Papacy, praying to saints, Eucharist, confession, Blessed Virgin Mary, Purgatory etc...

Edit 2: IT IS AFTER 6am! I am about to go to bed, having seen the woodpigeons outside on a little walkabout, but a thought occurred to me, thus:

Catholics and non-Catholics can verse sling, argument sling, even insult each other, but none of this achieves very much and is often not pleasing to God. Even the best discussions can only take one so far. Even the most persuasive argument can only do so much. Once each side presents their argument, what then? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and so much of the work is His after all is said. So with that in mind... here are my thoughts about the Papacy:

When presented with the scriptural and reasonable arguments for and against, I am swayed by the arguments for. But beyond this, I am impressed by the rock that is the Papacy. We can see in our world today, that the strongest, firmest, most faithful voice for Jesus Christ, for good in the world, is that of Pope Benedict XVI, and before him, Pope John Paul II. These major figures speak the words of Jesus, they show us the way to life. These rocks hold firm against a world that is growing ever colder and more distorted by sin. The person of Pope Benedict is hated by so many people. Remember the words of Christ, If the world hates you, remember it hated me first. Of course, there have been a few bad Popes, but not one of them taught heresy from the Chair of Peter. The faith and morals were protected from error and are still protected to this day.

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

~ St John's Gospel, Chapter 15

We look at the scorn and contempt heaped upon the Pope. We see the mocking of the teachings of the Church. In a world that exalts sexual pleasure and lust, the teachings on chastity are laughed at. The teaching on contraception is ridiculed. But still, the Church and Her teachings hold firm. They do not change according to popular opinion or current trends.

According to my understanding of the nature of God, His loving care and providence, His desire to give us only the best, to not leave us lost orphans in the world, left to our own defenses to find our own way, alone, unaided, on the contrary to stay with us as He promised He would, to guide us in all truth, as he promised He would, all this supports the notion that He did indeed mean to give us the Papacy as the Father figure in the Household of God. And the Lord's desire to give us only the best, means, not only is the Papacy a gift from God, but so too is the Eucharist. God gives His all, and His best, at all times. He did not give us merely a symbol, He gave us Himself, His very flesh to eat and His blood to drink, food from heaven for us to feed upon so that we become what we eat.

The most convincing, concise treatise on the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, this one, from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

Reminder: Let's keep this discussion focused on the Papacy (for now), as beyond that things get confusing and it becomes impossible to follow all the different arguments, tangents, and sub-arguments.

ISAW

smurfhousing wrote: »

The Church teaches that faith and reason go together and are not in conflict.

I've not read this , but I am sure it is an excellent summary: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

On faith and reason:
Here is something to which I have often referred and which the media have misinterpreted and in which you might be interested

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

philologos

If I might keep it more succint smurfhousing. We need to discuss what I am rejecting the Pope as. I am not rejecting that the Pope serves as a bishop or indeed head bishop of the RCC, and that the RCC for the most part does teach coherent doctrine, and is eager to be a part of the rest of the Christian body through mutual co-operation.

What I do have an issue is, is that the Pope is the sole authority in terms of Christianity. I believe that Jesus Christ is the sole authority in terms of Christianity, and that we as His people are His servants in the world.

I don't find it convincing, as PDN doesn't. That the Pope can live a life that isn't coherent with the Gospel. 1 John suggests that those who do not follow Jesus' commandments are not of Him, and yet be the sole authority on faith and morals. That's absurd to the highest degree, and it would suggest strongly to me that the Pope is a man like any other.

It's really much more simplex than going through a long and lengthy document in order to counter argue. I've made clear, that I actually for the most part do not have an issue with the RCC. However, I personally do not have an interest in joining the RCC as I believe that in some areas it teaches what isn't Scriptural*.

*N.B - In many areas it does teach what is Scriptural.

smurfhousing wrote:

Of course, there have been a few bad Popes, but not one of them taught heresy from the Chair of Peter. The faith and morals were protected from error and are still protected to this day.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Keep saying that but it is only being an ideologue.

ISAW

smurfhousing wrote: »

I think that Stealth is in his bed sleeping soundly.

In his absence, I propose something interesting. Perhaps you could somehow justify the Protestant rejection of the Papacy,...

The reason I have chosen the Papacy is because Catholics hold that it is something willed by God, whereas, regardless of what they think about it, Protestants reject the Papacy as being unnecessary, irrelevant, or not important.

Ironically Anglicans ( well the Church of England anyway) seem to have a hierarchical view of the church with the "high Church" and "low church" and would also view the Monarch ( who many people view as irrelevant unnecessary and unimportant) as being approved by God.

Of course there are a hundred and one different topics that could be chosen, but you have to keep the discussion focussed, so I have taken the liberty of offering a focal point for the proceedings.

Even within the RCC ( indeed the Orthodox Church does recognise the Primacy of the Pope ) as I have pointed to there have been different degrees of conciliarity in history i.e. Church Councils having authority over the Pope. e.g. The Council of Constance.

What I am interested in, is the personal reasoning for why anyone would reject the Papacy, given the arguments for its necessity. Of course, you could, at this point, just post a link to some Protestant site with a comprehensive counter-argument...

the point isn't to post a link. The idea is to use a link to support a point made.

When presented with the scriptural and reasonable arguments for and against, I am swayed by the arguments for. But beyond this, I am impressed by the rock that is the Papacy. We can see in our world today, that the strongest, firmest, most faithful voice for Jesus Christ, for good in the world, is that of Pope Benedict XVI, and before him, Pope John Paul II. These major figures speak the words of Jesus, they show us the way to life. These rocks hold firm against a world that is growing ever colder and more distorted by sin. The person of Pope Benedict is hated by so many people.

The person. See there were a lot of people who dint like the authoritarian stance of Ratzinger. that was before he became Pope. They expected a different Pope because they experienced a different person. There is a problem is in distinguishing between the person and the office. If people dislike or mistrust the Pope because his is the Pope that is different to them doing so because he is Ratzinger.

Remember the words of Christ, If the world hates you, remember it hated me first. Of course, there have been a few bad Popes, but not one of them taught heresy from the Chair of Peter. The faith and morals were protected from error and are still protected to this day.

This "ex cathedra" stuff has only been referred to since Vatican I in the nineteenth century. A lot has changed in society over the last few centuries. But the issue isn't one of moral authority but one of political authority. I would suggest that is the basic difference between Anglicans and romans Catholic Church of Rome versus the Catholic Church of England. The CoE is distinctly Catholic and different when compared to other Protestants.

We look at the scorn and contempt heaped upon the Pope. We see the mocking of the teachings of the Church. In a world that exalts sexual pleasure and lust, the teachings on chastity are laughed at. The teaching on contraception is ridiculed. But still, the Church and Her teachings hold firm. They do not change according to popular opinion or current trends.

Indeed but much of the scorn heaped on the Pope is because he is Ratzinger and has a history in his prior dicastry.

He did indeed mean to give us the Papacy as the Father figure in the Household of God.

Which does not mean the Pope can't be guided by church councils.

The most convincing, concise treatise on the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, this one, from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

I question this treatise because like the Authoritarians ( cf. Bob altemeyer http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ )
it presents an "in group" and an "out group". the "in group " is under attack from outside and those "faithful" in it need to stick together and follow the leader. That type of thinking gets you into War in Iraq and Crusades and Mc Quade type Ireland. I don't subscribe to "throw us to the lions" philosophy. It is a negative justification.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

Ironically Anglicans ( well the Church of England anyway) seem to have a hierarchical view of the church with the "high Church" and "low church" and would also view the Monarch ( who many people view as irrelevant unnecessary and unimportant) as being approved by God.

I guess the role of Monarch in Anglicanism is very different from the one of Pope in Catholicism. Nobody calls the queen infallible, etc.

( indeed the Orthodox Church does recognise the Primacy of the Pope )

A small correction: East did recognise the Pope of Rome to have a primacy of honour which is a very different thing compared to the modern RCC understanding, i.e. they had his name on the first place in their diptychs but he never had any authority over other Churches. Since Pope of Rome was removed from the Eastern diptychs his primacy is out of question as he is considered by East as schismatic and heretic.

Slav

Smurfhousing, Papacy is a great topic to discuss, good choice.

In order to understand why it is rejected by the rest of Christendom we need to do a bit of research on the following topics:

Biblical support of Papacy as it's understood today,
Interpretation of those passages by early Christians as well as other ECF writings and is it the same or is it any different from the modern understanding,
Historical evidence that Papacy played the same Role in the first few centuries of Christianity as it plays today in the RCC.

If you post those scriptural, Early Church Fathers or historical evidence I'm sure people would be happy to explain why they reject them; then RC can make their own conclusions on how reasonable or unreasonable such interpretation is. It would be easier if we don't just post links to some articles on the internet but give our own summary first without making posts too big; optional link to the source my be given after that.

smurfhousing

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed but much of the scorn heaped on the Pope is because he is Ratzinger and has a history in his prior dicastry.

He has a history of protecting the True Faith from wolf heretics like Hans Kung, who in case you didn't know, is a pro-gay, pro-abort, pro-contraception anti-Catholic. Yet Kung is wheeled out as the hero by the MSM whilst Ratzinger is labelled the intolerant hater. I honestly don't know why Kung remains in the visible Catholic Church, when he could find what he wants elsewhere. If you've swallowed the MSM portrait of Cardinal Ratzinger, then I am sorry for you.

Slav, there are so many scriptural and Church Father references, I can't possible post them on a thread, so here are the links. You can refute them one by one if you wish:

Scripture
The Primacy of Peter in Scripture
Tradition / Church Fathers
-Peter Built the Church in Rome
-Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See
-Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

My question is, in the face of all this, how does one reject the Papacy, given to us by God, and if you acknowledge it but ignore the authority, then it's as good as rejecting the Papacy.

I don't want any rabbit holes or tangents opened up (ISAW!) just refutations of the mass of scriptural and early Church Father related evidence, the link to which I just posted above.

Slav

smurfhousing wrote: »

My question is, in the face of all this, how does one reject the Papacy.

Short answer is: not everybody see all this as supporting Papacy. That's exactly why I suggested that posting links to articles and big collections of scriptural and ECF quotes will get us nowhere. If you want to know why those are not seen by others as supporting Papacy - bring them here where they can be discussed. Just don't deal with them in one go: for a start select the strongest or the most important from your point of view.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/philosophies/epistemology.htm
The holy grail of positivists is the identification of generalized laws of the universe.

I will refer you to Fanny's post which sums up pretty accurately what science actually says in relation to what a "law" is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*Tangent Alert*

Indeed. I think that it would be fair to say that a law in science is not a description of the way things should be, rather it is a description of how things have been observed to be. And observation may refine or even overturn a law.

*Tangent Alert*

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I will refer you to Fanny's post which sums up pretty accurately what science actually says in relation to what a "law" is.

And i will ask you to look up the words "epistemology" "ontology" and "absolutism"
There are different philosophies of science. the idea that science can be explained and all come under the one umbrella is a positivist notion. Positivism had inherent problems as a philosophy which I pointed out. In the 2oth century Science went through a reformation and the science wars. I was comparing this to the reformation and counter reformation in the Church. People today don't just reject science when they know that it is insufficient for society.

ISAW

smurfhousing wrote: »

'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.

I posted "as far as i know"
I am on record plenty of times stating the Church position on condoms and pointing out that condoms are not the problem but casual sex is the problem and it is YOU who mis interpreted ME in that message.

I never stated that the Catholic church supports condom use to prevent HIV/AIDS. I stated that as far as i know the church had a different policy on limited use in married couples.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6072522.ece

Asked whether he would suggest condom use to a married faithful catholic couple who came to him for advice where one of them had Aids, he said: "Well obviously that's a very sensitive point and obviously there are different views on that."

Asked what his own view was, he insisted: "No, no, that's not what this public debate is about."

Now the above is from a conservative Bishop with nihil obstat. I didn't misrepresent anything. You do not represent the Catholic position you represent your view on the Catholic position.

I am on record many times saying the Church view is that casual sex is the problem and condom use isn't a solution to AIDS and that this is a valid argument. I have supplied non Catholic statistical reports from WHO which show AIDS statistics in relation to intergenerational sex. that is the public debate on condoms. the "use in marriage" issue is different and if you don't believe me all you have to do is accept the what the Primate of England and Wales said on it.

Again I will state above you are claiming that the "official" Catholic position isn't been upheld and is being distorted. What gives YOU the authority to decide the "official position"? Have you got "ordinary power" ? No!
But you insert the picture of the Pope slapping his head as if it gives the impression that you are speaking for the Pope.
Feel free to represent whatever you believe is the position but don't claim that making people like you a moderator will suddenly cause a change for the better.

ISAW

Given the recent accusations of anti Catholicism I find the "Justify the Pope" debate as putting Catholics on the defensive

Might I suggest this mega thread also discuss

1. Whether the Bible is all that is needed to be a christian ( taking up the Protestant element of the written word being the central part of the faith.

2. The salvation by "faith alone" versus "faith and and good works" argument which is also a central Protestant belief.

I suggest that posts on these subjects begin

ON SOLA SCRIPTURE

and

ON SOLA FIDE

so we know which sub thread is being discussed

And the existing one ON PAPACY

There is also Sola gratia Solus Christus and Soli Deo gloria

You will find definitions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

Ironic that it is the Irish word for "light"

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

1. Whether the Bible is all that is needed to be a christian ( taking up the Protestant element of the written word being the central part of the faith.

Actually that isn't what Sola Scriptura means.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only authoritative revelation of God and contains, in essence, all that we need to know for salvation.

Sola Scriptura still acknowledges the need for other authorities to govern Christian life and devotion, but these authorities must be subordinate to the Bible. So, if the Bible says one thing and your ecclesiastical authority (bishop, pastor, priest, whatever) says something different then the Christian course of action is to obey the Bible.

Since the knowledge contained in Scripture is 'in essence' we also need biblical scholars, teachers, translators etc to help us understand it at times. However, and I think this is an important distinction, these figures are not there to make authoritative declarations, but rather to help our understanding by demonstrating to us, by sound exegetical methods, why a Scriptural text should be interpreted in a particular way.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

And i will ask you to look up the words "epistemology" "ontology" and "absolutism"

I understand those words just fine ISAW, they don't help your argument. What you claimed "science" says it doesn't, not even the positive movement that fell out of favor early last century.

None of this is relevant to this thread though so I'm happy to discuss the nature of science in another thread

ISAW wrote: »

I was comparing this to the reformation and counter reformation in the Church. People today don't just reject science when they know that it is insufficient for society.

I'm not sure why you were doing that, it is comparing chalk with cheese. As you point out "science" throughout the history of human development has encompassed a whole range of differing philosophies.

Modern scientific philosophy rejects any notion that we can uncover true perfect understanding of nature. So it would seem to be the exact opposite of your the RCC wasn't infallible in the past but is now view point. As Jimi pointed out it isn't about light of new knowledge, it is about broken trust of claims. When the RCC claimed to be infallible they got it wrong. It should hardly be surprising that Protestants don't trust them now any more than they did before. The very nature of being infallible is untestable, something science long ago worked out in relation to its own scientific models.

Saying to PDN well if you reject the infallibility of the RCC why don't you reject science as well seems a bit ridiculous since science isn't making any where near as bold a claim as the modern RCC is.

lmaopml

ISAW wrote: »

Given the recent accusations of anti Catholicism I find the "Justify the Pope" debate as putting Catholics on the defensive

Might I suggest this mega thread also discuss

1. Whether the Bible is all that is needed to be a christian ( taking up the Protestant element of the written word being the central part of the faith.

2. The salvation by "faith alone" versus "faith and and good works" argument which is also a central Protestant belief.

I suggest that posts on these subjects begin

ON SOLA SCRIPTURE

and

ON SOLA FIDE

so we know which sub thread is being discussed

And the existing one ON PAPACY

There is also Sola gratia Solus Christus and Soli Deo gloria

You will find definitions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

Ironic that it is the Irish word for "light"

The thread would go all over the place ISAW if we're talking about that many things at the same time. However, we should certainly get to them...

I don't think talking about the Pope is putting Catholics on the defensive, certainly not I - I believe there is far more evidence and far more logical reason to believe that Christ actually left a guardian or custodian of the Church than not...

It perhaps might be a good idea to discuss Smurfs links one by one....

The idea here isn't to 'convert' anybody..lol...well, I'm not on that particular mission. The idea is to present a reasonable case 'for' the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar with Apostolic authority - as opposed to the alternative sola scriptura doctrine which allowes self interpretion and a variety of Christians who are very different even to eachother...

Remembering that the 'Church' guides us on Scripture, it certainly doesn't highlight areas of it and say - 'this' is the philosophy you 'have' to adhere to with regards predestination or science evolution etc. etc. etc. A lot of Scripture messages unfold with time, and the wisdom contained within may be incomprehensible to some of us in 'this' age to fully understand. St. Augustine was pretty cool at pointing out the foolhardiness of digging ones heels in with matters of nature. The Church guides us in light of new philosophies, new technology et al in relation to how we should compare them with the central message of Christ......Hence the 'faith and morals'....

......From what I have seen so far, it seems more so to make a concerted effort to 'dogmatise' something when a heresy happens in order to make sure that people understand, for instance, that there is nothing particularly wrong with having a picture of Jesus in your home or wearing a cross etc. or asking Saints to pray for us etc. ...and this seems to be the trend from the beginning...

lmaopml

smurfhousing wrote: »

The Church teaches that faith and reason go together and are not in conflict.

I've not read this , but I am sure it is an excellent summary: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Smurf, thanks for this, it's very apt..

and well done finding it..lol...

..you seem to always find the right links, and well worth the read too...Ta!

lmaopml

Also Smurf, I'm just thinking here of a poem I read a while ago...I'm an ole romantic at heart..but it's one of those that makes you really really 'think'..and by a lovely man, Alexander Pope..! If I may be permitted, I know it's not exactly a Protestant/Catholic thing..and it's not even rather religious, all though could be considered to be, if more verses were filled in; but it was presented to me only this way...... has been laid across my path 'twice' both in equally weird ways....and your article made me get the itch to post it..

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is Man. Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being darkly wise and rudely great: With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side, With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride, He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest, In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast, In doubt his mind or body to prefer; Born but to die, and reasoning but to err; Alike in ignorance, his reason such Whether he thinks too little or too much: Chaos of thought and passion, all confused; Still by himself abused, or disabused; Created half to rise and half to fall; Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all; Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled: The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

If nothing else, I hope it's at least worth the one minute read...I thought it was really 'smart', beautifully and honestly written...

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

The thread would go all over the place ISAW if we're talking about that many things at the same time. However, we should certainly get to them...

Well either you are going to discuss them in this thread or your not?

The idea here isn't to 'convert' anybody..lol...well, I'm not on that particular mission. The idea is to present a reasonable case 'for' the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar with Apostolic authority - as opposed to the alternative sola scriptura doctrine which allowes self interpretion and a variety of Christians who are very different even to eachother...

This isnt a vote but the fact is that of mainstrean Christians the Orthodox and the Romans (and that is the vast majority of Christians) accept the idea of the Pope. Also Anglicans and others accept the idea of bishops and magesterium.

Also the RCC accepts that it lost its way on the past and corruption and the politics of authoritarianism caused the reformation.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

This isnt a vote but the fact is that of mainstrean Christians the Orthodox and the Romans (and that is the vast majority of Christians) accept the idea of the Pope.

This fact is something new for Orthodox. Once again, the idea of Pope as of a special bishop does not exist outside of Catholicism (not counting some marginal groups within Anglo-Catholicism). In Orthodoxy it's clearly seen as an ecclesiological heresy.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

The thread would go all over the place ISAW if we're talking about that many things at the same time. However, we should certainly get to them...

Including working for your salvation sometime

I believe there is far more evidence and far more logical reason to believe that Christ actually left a guardian or custodian of the Church than not...

To suppose the Head of the church left a custodian (of Papal dimensions) would be to suppose He ever left the Church in the first place. Only in the measure you suppose Christs church a physical thing will you suppose his not being present in it.

Have you not Christ by his Holy Spirit residing within you (you being the Church)? What can the Pope tell you that the Holy Spirit cannot?

The idea is to present a reasonable case 'for' the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar with Apostolic authority - as opposed to the alternative sola scriptura doctrine which allowes self interpretion and a variety of Christians who are very different even to eachother...

Your very first task is to find a way of enabling the notion of "Tradition speaks" to take authorititive flight. Without this you are left with scripture alone (something we both consider sacred). You are naturally precluded from using scripture-alone to enable 'Tradition' to take flight.

I suspect you will be left having to rely on "what seems reasonable to me" for your argument's undergirding - the flaws in which should be immediately apparent.

From what I have seen so far, it seems more so to make a concerted effort to 'dogmatise' something when a heresy happens in order to make sure that people understand, for instance, that there is nothing particularly wrong with having a picture of Jesus in your home or wearing a cross etc. or asking Saints to pray for us etc. ...and this seems to be the trend from the beginning...

Scripture tells us that wolves in sheeps clothing were there from the beginning too. And so we have an example of the kind of problem you face in supposing Tradition to inform you. Tradition might be sacred. It might be profane. How do you tell?

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

Smurf, thanks for this, it's very apt.. and well done finding it..lol...

..you seem to always find the right links, and well worth the read too...Ta!

Are you going to thank me too for this:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Including working for your salvation sometime

and all the 'work' entails as opposed to what we 'think' it entails from our respective positions...Nothing like a little clarification..

LMAO :pac:! Welcome back antiskeptic...........see what we caused

Without a doubt antiskeptic

we can combine it with the nature of freewill / Grace / Merit and our philosophies on predestination / predeterminism at the root of our differences....an 'epic' chat..lol...

Fanny Cradock

There have been some interesting tangents arising here, but just so we don't get too far off track, I'm just going to remind people that this is the The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread.

philologos

ISAW - If I may take you up on what you said about Sola Scriptura a few pages ago. I think more the point of Sola Scriptura, isn't just limiting yourself to the Bible, but recognising that Christian teaching given in other books must be Biblically substantiated. For example, you can read numerous other Christian writers for inspiration, but at the same time if they are not teaching the same Gospel as the one that was originally professed that is problematic. It would be my view, that the church should conform to Scripture, rather than Scripture conforming to the church.

If I am taking with StealthRolex and others have said about the church, it seems to be the interpreter of the Scripture. Which in turn means that Scripture must conform to the interpretation of the church. From my personal view, it is the other way around. The church must remain true to Scripture.