Cruciform
New member
So, then, no actual proof whatsoever for your claims. That's what I thought.
What would make you Catholic?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
Or not. See Post #484 above.
glassjester
Well-known member
In relation to my question in the OP, is it your belief in the 5 Solae that prevents you from believing in the teaching and interpretive authority of the Church?
In other words, if you had sufficient evidence that (let's say) Sola Scriptura was untrue, would this somehow bring you closer to the Catholic position?
Lon
Well-known member
And subjective. I have two eyes too. I wanted you to understand that 'man-made' happened when you a man, chose the RC 'making' that your choice.
"Your" preferred man-made interpretation. You use it as a club, I use it as an appropriate equalizer. I'm not interested in faulty he said/she said banter or superiority complex. People can read scripture.
HisServant
New member
Catholic behavior would exclude me from ever joining the RCC... from the Pope all the way down to my Catholic neighbors.... even if by some miracle of logic, the 5 sola's are proven insufficient.
I would rather burn in hell than join the RCC....i feel that strongly about its hypocracy..... and if God is behind the RCCs teaching is the true God... then he is not worth worshiping in or believing in... because of what he has allowed the RCC to do in his name.
glassjester
Well-known member
What a shame. But off-topic. You only say this because you do not believe the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.
So I ask... what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ?
Cruciform
New member
No, WHAT you've chosen has an inherently objective status---that is, it either is, or is not, that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your chosen recently-invented, man-made sect either is, or is not, Christ's one historic Church. And if you're going to claim that your interpretations (opinions) carry the doctrinal authority of Christ himself, you'll first have to demonstrate that your favored sect is itself that one historic Church.
Go ahead, then, and post your proof.
I "made" my choice, however I did not "make" the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. So, while my choice of Christ's Church is "man-made," the Catholic Church herself---unlike your chosen recently-invented sect---is not. Therefore, the Catholic Church carries the doctrinal authority of its founder, Jesus Christ (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15), while your preferred recently-invented, man-made sect decidedly does not.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Wow. I'm sure your pathetically arrogant and laughably ignorant judgment of Almighty God must be so very intimidating to Him. Let's all join hands and pray for the Lord, that He'll somehow be able to recover from HS's pathetic little "god-like" rebuke!
lain:
Lon
Well-known member
Yes. Thanks for asking.
Sure. If any of the 5 solae were insufficient reasons, we'd all be Catholic. Sola Scriptura, often is misunderstood to mean "Solo" scriptura. This isn't what that means, lest you proceed to knock down a straw man that doesn't exist. God does give authority to men of faith and we are to treat older men in the faith as fathers, who have studied. This means they have a better grasp from years of faithful service, of the scriptures as well as embrace their denomination. When we choose a denomination, we all fall under authority of that denomination. It is on the denominational level that sola scriptura works. They settle disputes based on understanding of those scriptures. Any time a body of these men have been unfaith to their denomination doctrine, there have been church splits, even within the walls of Catholicism. How did men and women decide that? 1) they looked to scripture and heeded what it said, despite the poor attempt of their now adverse leaders to go against their own doctrines, based off of scripture. Tradition is fine, but if/when it goes against divinely inspired Bible tradition, it is no longer serving the Christ of Christianity or His people. 2) The men in authority that opposed, were not heeded when the others departed doctrine, and thus the ones asserting authority incorrectly (abuse), were the ones that were wrong.
It is important to see how this plays out in your own church walls, to understand how it has played out in Protestantism as well. Authoritarianism may well keep unity, but only in that it expels or tramples down its members, and perhaps, humanly-wrongly. Papal authority doesn't allow for error, especially ex cathedra, but it is often caught in illogical circular reasoning to preserve its authority. It is very odd for a Protestant to accept, let alone comprehend, those, because we are as much caught in the 5 solae as you are in AS, sacraments, traditions, and papal authority.
The 5 solae, a quick overview:
1) Sola scriptura - It isn't 'scripture alone' as a blanket statement, but as it pertains in matters of settling issues. We go through avenues of authority and expertise often similar to Catholicism BUT scripture is given the high seat in most Protestant churches, and any truly Protestant church embraces scripture as the top tier, with God's Spirit and Sovereignty on that same tier. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (notice from here, how all five solae are intertwined and all stand as truth, given by God, to guide believers in living out their faith in Him and understanding what He has done).
2) Sola Fide - Faith alone. Ephesians 2:8-10 is our go-to for explaining faith alone and how works plays in the salvation process. Works, verse 10 says, is the result of being saved. James reads the same way in that 'faith without works is dead' meaning not 'do works' but 'have faith that works may proceed.' James, imho, embraces Ephesians 2:10
3) Sola Gratia - Grace alone, unmerited. Luke 23:39-43 reveals that man is saved by grace alone, and is assured of this grace by God. 2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 8:16 etc.
4) Solus Christus - Christ alone is mediator between God and man Hebrews 8:10-11; 10:16, and He directly communicates to man without interpreter. He 'may' use another to help grow another in the faith, but a new creation, growing, is God's work alone. 1 Corinthians 3:7
5) Soli Deo Gloria - All veneration to God alone. Matthew 23:9 Acts 10:25-26
glassjester
Well-known member
Wow. I'm sure your pathetically arrogant and laughably ignorant judgment of Almighty God must be so very intimidating to Him. Let's all join hands and pray for the Lord, that He'll somehow be able to recover from HS's pathetic little "god-like" rebuke!
Quite audacious.
Even if HS positively knew that Catholic doctrine was indeed God's doctrine, he'd still prefer his own interpretations.
"No, God. Let me tell You what this Bible verse really means."
Yikes.
Cruciform
New member
Such are the spiritually tragic consequences of sola scriptura and it's concomitant methodology, the presumed "right of private judgment" in the formulation of doctrine.
glassjester
Well-known member
But who determines whether a particular tradition goes against Scripture or not?
Of possibly more importance: Who has the authority to determine that a particular tradition is in fact apostolic and Biblical, and therefore binding on Christians?
Who?
Individuals? A particular denomination? A popular vote?
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: I believe you are already aware ofthe church universal. Even the Catholic church recognizes its members are not all saved AND recognizes many of us outside as brothers, but in err. That necessarily means you recognize a group, whether you wish to call it 'the church univeral' or not. Those in the RC are illogically denying it as a term, while embracing it and often talking about it, inconsistently.
This is an assumption I don't share. For one, it is not logical, given the above concession, that I believe you must. For another, it is not but a platitude of authority assertion to Protestants. We often do not talk the same language so the 'force' you imagine of this statement is nowhere there, though I think I empathize a bit, having tried. Paul said their was a similar schism concerning him and Apollos. Moving the ball to Christ, but maintaining the fight isn't really understanding or embracing that Paul was calling into light, not just the tension between Paul and Apollos, but the fight itself. Now you are following another man called the RC and I am following one called Reformation/Protestant. I imagine they used the "Apollos is actually following Jesus Christ!" argument. Next breath: "Paul was 'chosen' by Him!" ....the 'superiority' assertions are probably meant to both be a defense as well as assertion against Protestant reasoning, but we already, being Protestant rejected it, so again, the simple assertion isn't meaningful dialogue other than perhaps making a few Catholics feel comfortable. I'm saying, whatever your reasoning, I don't think it is doing the intended job you think it does. It is a shot in the blind, as it were. It may, however, as I said, make you and other Catholics feel a bit more comfortable. It isn't doing anything in a Protestant/Catholic discussion, however. My chosen church, was established by Christ according to my scriptural expectations. We are concerned with different matters to make that bold statement.
Lon
Well-known member
Again, look within Roman Catholic walls. Between Vatican 1 and 2, it is assumed whoever stayed with the Pope was correct, but who gave the dissenting half authority? Your mind works differently than mine on answering, because your church handles this differently than mine. In mine, members have to pray and read scriptures. Sometimes, to avoid the mess, the go to another church altogether, as do some Catholics. Perhaps you followed your priest during the Vatican 1, 2 struggle. Perhaps you chose one based on authority. Perhaps you read scripture. Ultimately, it was a combination of Priests making decisions, and you making decisions to follow them or not. It is not much different on my side of the woods.
Here are, hopefully a few questions that will help: Are Vatican 1 members still Catholic? Do they still have authority or are they no longer carrying it? What if they are following their priest? It may or may not help.
There are rare times a church split is an emotional fight and the split is not doctrinal (though I think ultimately it is) and pressed by laity. Most of the time a church splits, it is the elders/pastor who make that happen and I think, similar to RC splits and fractions. For instance, I can't be a Catholic because I'd be a Jansenist anyway. They were ousted from RC fellowship or had to give it up. Its a sad commentary after 200 years, but the Arminian Jesuits won that fight.
Because of the splits, how would I decide which? Vatican 1 or 2? EOC or Eithiopian?
Cruciform
New member
Catholics acknowledge that non-Catholics who [1] believe in Jesus Christ and [2] have been properly baptized may be saved by means of their (the non-Catholics') sacramental connection with Christ's one historic Catholic Church (see Catechism par. 838). That does not, however, mean that non-Catholics are formal members of Christ's Church.
Of course not, since your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has taught you to believe otherwise. You reject the singularity (oneness) and historicity (visibility/tangibility) of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, though the New Testament itself applies the term "church" ONLY to a visible, tangible, and humanly-structured entity which, by the close of the 1st century, was already being commonly referred to as "the Catholic Church."
...based upon the historical and ecclesiastical fact of the Catholic Church's status as that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---a status that Protestants simply cannot demonstrate for their preferred recently-invented, man-made sects. If you disagree, then please go ahead and post your proof in support of your own favored sect.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
glassjester
Well-known member
There's nothing wrong with the Eastern rites. That's still the Catholic Church, btw.
From: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10068
If you're talking about sedevacantism - that's another matter, isn't it?
Still, these matters don't validate Sola Scriptura. If anything, they highlight the need for the magisterium.
Lon
Well-known member
Nor that some of your own members are saved, therefore are not 'real' members of Christ's Church.
Incorrect. It is your man-made platitude that probably makes you feel good about yourself or designed to get a rise out of another. I do know you hate me saying it about your choices and views, but its true. You say this because you buy into circular reasoning that is strongly associated with AS, tradition, and authority. Me? I don't see sync, so I don't really care if you call that recently invented, man-made, or a sect (underscore bold). It is logical to see your problems and 'looks' like an episode in brain-washing. I don't buy it. It doesn't scripturally look right, but I'm Sola Scriptura, so that should make sense to you. I get to think for myself, using what God gave me. You don't have permission to figure this kind of stuff out, nor authority, so we are arguing one from dictation, and the other from what he has come to understand using logic that God gives.
John 18:36
Because they aren't brain-washed. God did establish His church. Luther came from the RC, so He was even sovereign over that. You are failing to follow the Spirit's trail, as far as I'm concerned. You know 1) that some are saved outside of Catholic walls, and2) that some within aren't. We are concerned about two different things, and mine looks more spiritual and right than yours. Yours seems more like an NFL-fan adherence to a team that at one time might have won a superbowl, but doesn't have the players needed to make it again. I am concerned with who actually is my brother and sister in Christ.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
They don't agree, but that was only one of several so I don't want to get too far on merely an example when asking which.
I don't think so. How would I know which was the right? The larger or the tens/hundreds of thousands who left? That's a fairly significant number. Again, the RC makes assumptions at these points, and I think it'd be wise to understand a Protestant mindset at this point. Not all, from every congregation is a Christian and Catholics tend to agree with me on this regarding their own Parish (see my conversation with Cruci above for some of this repetition btw). While we do disagree on what 'church' means at that point, the more important point of who is Christ's should cross that barrier concerning what is of greater importance, that is, who is Christ's and who is not.
Again, it depends what is of most importance. I don't view 'where' you attend as important as Who you and I belong to. I am also more interested in what you are doing with Jesus Christ our Lord, God, and Savior, more than I am about what is happening with your Priest. To me, those issues overshadow your need for your magistrate. Having go-betweens between you and Christ is a Catholic concern. It is almost like asking me, as an adult, to come under your parental authority. Most Protestants see Authoritarian hierarchy in that kind of odd light. I have Catholics in my background, so understand that, but it is even more foreign of an idea for most Protestants and very much rejected by those who are freed as exCatholic Protestants from it.