The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

ISAW wrote: »

Ill ask you again - if you just wanted their response why did you not PM them?

i answered you. Because I simply din't. No thought process, the question was there, i hit the quote button, and away I went. No big deal is it?

If the reply has public significance then surely others should be able to publically reply with their own opinion?

I appreciate that, and of course you can respond. I was merely pointing out, for your own sake, with no offence intended, that I wasn't interest in debate with yourself on it at this moment in time. You are of course free to post on it though. You may wish to object to my methods of not using the PM function, and that is your entitlement. I'll be continuing with how I conduct myself though, and am sure will be discussing things with you at other points, if you so wish of course.

JimiTime wrote: »

*shrugs* Because I didn't. I asked, what convinces 'you' (Lmaopml), in response to a post she made and I was looking for a personal response. Thank you for your input, but I was simply asking another poster, as was interested specifically in 'their' response. Thanks again.

Ill ask you again - if you just wanted their response why did you not PM them? Why are you asking them to respond publically to a question you are only interested in for their personal opinion and personal reply? If the reply has public significance then surely others should be able to publically reply with their own opinion?

ISAW wrote: »

Why didn't you PM him then instead of posting it to a public thread?

*shrugs* Because I didn't. I asked, what convinces 'you' (Lmaopml), in response to a post she made and I was looking for a personal response. Thank you for your input, but I was simply asking another poster, as was interested specifically in 'their' response. Thanks again.

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, Peter being the elder in Rome is Inconsaquential to my question of the RCC being apostolic.

sorry but it isn't. the whole basis of the Pope is that Peter was chosen as an apostle and that he was singled out for a particular place.

Peter was certainly an apostle, and he had the attributes which we are told apostleship gave.

And the Catholic (and Orthodox and indeed even Anglican ) interpretation would be he had more then just that and was a "first among equals" at the very least.

Also, the question was for Lmaopml. No offence.

Why didn't you PM him then instead of posting it to a public thread?

ISAW wrote: »

Eh? You might start with Peter being Bishop of Rome seat of Peter and all the other in succession since? this is recognised by those outside the Roman branch.

TBH, Peter being the elder in Rome is Inconsaquential to my question of the RCC being apostolic. Peter was certainly an apostle, and he had the attributes which we are told apostleship gave.

Also, the question was for Lmaopml. No offence.

Fanny Cradock

If you guys want a new thread then PM me the numbers of relevant posts. I think it's fair that we share the work :pac:

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Not true! Burbridge himself a nobel prize winner personally explained to me how bias of not adhering to the accepted model in physics resulted in budget cuts for postgrad funding. while in theory we can all claim certain equations suggest certain interpretations and "science agrees" in practicse political and economic factors and personal bias affect budgets.

Who pays your salary? Or do you work for nothing? To assert that "all science is purely objective" in nonsense. Barely one per cent Ook maybe up to three per cent) of science is about "finding new knowledge" i.e. pure or basiic research. Most is application! Just as most religion is pastoral and not theology.

There will always be playground politics in any discipline. But science is still antagonistic towards authoritative claims at its core, which is why, even if it takes decades of arguing and pushing against the norm, theories and models are ultimately adopted based on scientific merit. And when authoritative pressures are identified in any scientific field, it is accepted as "bad".With the Curch, on the otherhand, authority is embraced. What the Pope says goes.

As for 3% research? That's certainly not my experience, and I'm in the field of theoretical/computational physics.

Weinberg is one of my favourite writers on science too and not because the is atheist as I suspect you are. Are you? He points out a lot of the political bais in science.

Yes, I'm an atheist. And yes he does. But he also goes on to say:

"It is simply a logical fallacy to go from the observation that science is a social process to the conclusion that the final product, our scientific theories, is what it is because of the social and historical forces acting in this process. A party of mountain climbers may argue over the best path to the peak, and these arguments may be conditioned by the history and social structure of the expedition, but in the end either they find a good path to the peak or they do not, and when they get there they know it."

But a relativist alternative also has flaws. Whether in morality or interpretation of the universe.

I reject both relativism and positivism. I shift between a casual realist and a nihilist.

[edit]-oops... posted this after I saw Fanny's post. Perhaps it should be moved/split?

Fanny Cradock

Just to remind folks that this thead is The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread. Other topics - such as science - really don't belong here.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think in the context of this thread, I'd ask, what convinces you that the Roman church is apostolic?

Eh? You might start with Peter being Bishop of Rome seat of Peter and all the other in succession since? this is recognised by those outside the Roman branch.

Also, what convinces you, that they ALONE are apostolic and all others inferior?

The Roman church does not suggest that they alone are apostolic. And those outside of the rioman branch have accepted the importance of the Chair of Peter.

Here is an orthodox view on it

http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2005/differences.htm
The Orthodox Church believed that the Pope of Rome was "first among equals" in a grouping of patriarchs of the universal Church when sitting in Council.

Also, if your concience and your scriptural reading told you that the RCC was in error in some way, would you simply accept that you are wrong and tow the RC line?

There are plenty of Roman's, clerics and lay people who opposed authority when it was wrong. One can't go against one's conscience to support a political entity. The question then is from whence is the conscience informed?

Cheers Jackass, I would imagine it's all down to expression, but most Catholics would be pretty similar in their regard and belief as to the role the Church plays..... as the ultimate interpretation. I think the church recognises to varying degrees that some Christian denominations have held onto some important truths, but are in error at other times or misleading or irresponsible in their teachings, sometimes more serious than others.....and they try to clarify these errors with the faithful when necessary to protect and preserve the fullness of faith.

However, as the Church doesn't make a claim as to who is finally saved whether Catholic or no, it simply regards itself as the custodian instituted by Jesus himself, of ultimate truth in the Holy Spirit, and a gift to humanity, to serve humanity..

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure Antiskeptic, we can deal with the concept of there being a 'Church', a physical and interior one from my perspective, and how we differ and why firstly if you like.

Okay. I'm particularily interested in the condundrums faced though.

Could you clarify the last part of your post and just let me know what your idea of 'Church' is, and also what you believe Jesus meant by it?

To me, the church of Christ is simply the collective of those who happen to be 'in Christ' - whatever their denomination. In so far as one can speak of an institution, that institution is utterly spiritual in nature.

It is to be expected that believers congregate together. In so far as they do that, there is an order of business to be maintained (what constitutes proper teaching, discipline, proscribed practices, etc). Those instructions are to be gleaned from the Bible and are to take account of the spirit of instruction (if any) intended.

I see no place for a physical/political institution along the lines of the Roman Church for the reasons already mentioned: there is no firm ground given for it's establishment that isn't utterly circular.

Also, I hope you don't mind me asking but I have no idea what denomination you are? or are you non denominational?

In Christ. Nothing else. In so far as doctrine fits the expanding framework of my own walk with God I take it on board. When it's overtaken by deeper understanding, it get's jettisoned. Ideally that is: I don't suppose anyone will ever reach the end of the Bible.

lmaopml wrote: »

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

I think in the context of this thread, I'd ask, what convinces you that the Roman church is apostolic? Also, what convinces you, that they ALONE are apostolic and all others inferior? Also, if your concience and your scriptural reading told you that the RCC was in error in some way, would you simply accept that you are wrong and tow the RC line?

lmaopml wrote: »

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

Indeed, it is your choice. I think you're pretty well grounded. I'd be interested to see what some of the others have to say. Others who regard that the RCC has the only legitimate interpretation to the Scriptures for example.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would consider the church to be the custodian of Scriptural truth, tradition to be the implementation of that truth in services, both of the previous are distinctly fallible. The Scripture is the inspired word of God given to prophets and Apostles. I would consider this to be infallible. Without the Scripture, we are lost. The church wouldn't be able to justify its existence without it.

Yes, I would go along with that, I believe the Church is the custodian of Scriptural truth.

Tradition can become self-serving, indeed the church can become self-serving if it warps Scriptural truth to fit its own agenda.

I am referring to the Christian church as a whole in this situation.

Totally agree.

This is why I would regard the personal interpretation of Scripture to be important. With one authority telling people how to read the Scripture, yes it does provide much more cohesion, but it is a huge risk, as it allows the authority to potentially do what is outside it's authority. If people interpret the Scriptures for themselves, they can check to see if their church is conforming to the Scriptures on a regular basis but at the risk of conflict.

Catholics are encouraged to read the bible too, every night, and to study....and when we need clarity, we go to the Church. ( Perhaps much like one may go to their pastor? ) There are certain areas of Scripture that may be more contentious that the Church clearly guides us on interpretation, the evidence for which is found in other Scriptural passages, tradition and history, so as to satisfy ourselves. Catholics generally believe that one can use Scripture to interpret Scripture...

I think most people try to read scripture through eyes of faith, no matter what branch of Christianity they are..

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

lmaopml wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the three are intrinisically interwoven....Church, Scripture and Tradition. They all must be in agreement....There is no 'downplaying' of Scripture for the sake of the other...Sacred Scripture is extremely important...

They just have to 'fit' eachother iykwim.

I would consider the church to be the custodian of Scriptural truth, tradition to be the implementation of that truth in services, both of the previous are distinctly fallible. The Scripture is the inspired word of God given to prophets and Apostles. I would consider this to be infallible. Without the Scripture, we are lost. The church wouldn't be able to justify its existence without it.

Tradition can become self-serving, indeed the church can become self-serving if it warps Scriptural truth to fit its own agenda.

I am referring to the Christian church as a whole in this situation.

This is why I would regard the personal interpretation of Scripture to be important. With one authority telling people how to read the Scripture, yes it does provide much more cohesion, but it is a huge risk, as it allows the authority to potentially do what is outside it's authority. If people interpret the Scriptures for themselves, they can check to see if their church is conforming to the Scriptures on a regular basis but at the risk of conflict.

I think this is a difference in epistemology.

Jakkass wrote: »

The church interprets scripture in the RCC view given by StealthRolex. The RCC has authority over the Scripture, the Scripture doesn't have authority over the RCC. If you understand what I mean. If the RCC has authority over how the Scripture is interpreted, the RCC also has authority over how the Scripture will apply to them. Church tradition and authority comes above the Scriptures if I am understanding StealthRolex correctly. The interpretation of Scripture is based on tradition.

In the Sola Scriptura point of view, as far as I am aware, it is that the Scripture has authority over the church. The church doesn't have authority over the Scripture as the Scripture is inspired by God Himself, and must be protected.

Hi Jackass,

As far as I am aware, the three are intrinisically interwoven....Church, Scripture and Tradition. They all must be in agreement....There is no 'downplaying' of Scripture for the sake of the other...Sacred Scripture is extremely important...

They just have to 'fit' eachother iykwim.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed

Indeed too.

So, what would you like to do: deal with the issues raised in my post (questioning the logic behind the need of a custodian for a church Christ never left/ questioning how you escape the circularity of relying on scripture alone to tell you not to rely on scripture alone) ... or something else?

Sure Antiskeptic, we can deal with the concept of there being a 'Church', a physical and interior one from my perspective, and how we differ and why firstly if you like.

Could you clarify the last part of your post and just let me know what your idea of 'Church' is, and also what you believe Jesus meant by it? Also, I hope you don't mind me asking but I have no idea what denomination you are? or are you non denominational?

lmaopml wrote: »

The Church does conform with Scripture Jackass. The Church put the Scriptural bible as we know it today together.....sacred scripture came out of the Church, so of course they conform....Sacred Scripture is very important.

The church interprets scripture in the RCC view given by StealthRolex. The RCC has authority over the Scripture, the Scripture doesn't have authority over the RCC. If you understand what I mean. If the RCC has authority over how the Scripture is interpreted, the RCC also has authority over how the Scripture will apply to them. Church tradition and authority comes above the Scriptures if I am understanding StealthRolex correctly. The interpretation of Scripture is based on tradition.

In the Sola Scriptura point of view, as far as I am aware, it is that the Scripture has authority over the church. The church doesn't have authority over the Scripture as the Scripture is inspired by God Himself, and must be protected.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

The Church does conform with Scripture Jackass. The Church put the Scriptural bible as we know it today together.....sacred scripture came out of the Church, so of course they conform....Sacred Scripture is very important.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Welcome back antiskeptic...........see what we caused

Indeed

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...

Indeed too.

So, what would you like to do: deal with the issues raised in my post (questioning the logic behind the need of a custodian for a church Christ never left/ questioning how you escape the circularity of relying on scripture alone to tell you not to rely on scripture alone) ... or something else?

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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...

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!