Forgive Me Father For Acting Protestant!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1287454' date='Jun 3 2007, 06:17 PM']Concerning those "Roman Catholics" who think the "Throne" of Peter is vacant, they are not Roman Catholic. they are in schism because it is not vacant. There is a true pope in succession of the previous ones. We're fine. Someone needs to explain that to them with charity.[/quote]

You might not consider them to be Roman Catholics, but they do...

[jeffpugh]

I don't like your relativistic thinking in this situation...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1287461' date='Jun 3 2007, 06:26 PM']I don't like your relativistic thinking in this situation...[/quote]

[jckinsman]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1287259' date='Jun 3 2007, 01:53 PM']By the way the BIble is self interpeting, you are supposed to see the book as one whole, it does interpet itself. {ie other verses do interpet other verses}[/quote]

The "Scripture interperts Scripture" fallacy is an element of the biggest Protestant fallacy of all: [i]Sola Scriptura[/i].

Luther announced his novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura in or about 1517. He disputed the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Church's philosophical explanation of how the bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ at the consecration of the Mass. Luther declared that [i][b]his[/b][/i] doctrine, which others have called "consubstantiation," should be believed instead -- the Body and Blood of Christ exist "[u]with and under[/u] the bread and wine." Only sixty years later, Christopher Rasperger wrote a book, [i]"Ducentæ verborum, 'Hoc est corpus meum' interpretationes" [/i](Ingolstadt, 1577).

Too bad those Protestants in the sixteenth century didn't know that Scripture interprets Scripture or there would have been only [b][i]one[/i][/b] interpretation of the four words, "This is my body" for Rapsberger to write about instead of [b][i]200[/i]. [/b]Now, 491 years after Sola Scriptura was announced, there are many, many more.

Scripture interprets Scripture? Obviously not.

Budge even disagrees with Moses, as my recent thread illustrates. One would think that Moses -- not Budge -- got the Scriptures right, right?. :

Likos

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1287312' date='Jun 3 2007, 04:05 PM']Yah-Hoo! You made it Budge!
So if you interpet it one way,and your fellow protestant neighbor another way! Who is right ? and where do you go to find out who's right? Yes ,we do all have our own life experiences, that is my point.Where is your authority?[/quote]


Scripture exegesis for the average lay protestant is simply a mental exercise in which you read a book and get a warm and fuzzy. For the theologians often times it is a chance for you to find something new that is your own. In this, I doubt many protestants ever read and understand scripture with the same concern for salvation that the fathers had. If "all I need to do is accept Jesus into my t-mobile 5 I am in heaven" then what is the point otherwise?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287103' date='Jun 3 2007, 03:00 AM']I don't think Protestants would deny this fact, I just think that they would take the road that a man isn't infallible, that the Holy Spirit enlightens us to the truth. If that wasn't the case, then it would be pointless for everyone to have a bible.[/quote]

Need I point out that not everyone had a Bible for many centuries, and that not everyone has a Bible today. 50% of the world's population is illiterate. 20% of the U.S. population is functionally illiterate. These people could not read a Bible if they had one. (Source: NBC News, Tom Brokaw). Only a fraction of the world's population could read before the 18th century. It is great to have a Bible, but it is not necessary for salvation. Christ founded the teaching Church for the salvation of the world. Christians can't even agree about which writings the Bible consists of, including the Orthodox.

[quote]Everytime you read your bible, do you read it with an infallible teacher?[/quote]Yes. The teachings of the Catholic Church are a template for reading the NT with correct understanding about what it means. The Church cannot teach error in faith and morals.


[quote]The only infallible teacher that helps guide me, while I read the bible is the Holy Spirit, as rare is anyone else present in the room.[/quote]

Hmmm. When I read Mt 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19, the Holy Spirit guides me to the Truth that Christ appointed St. Peter as head of the universal (Catholic) Church and that the powers of death (RSV) or gates of hell (KJV) will never prevail against it. I read in Mt 28:20 that Jesus promised to be with His Church until the end of time. Jesus is in Heaven, Peter is His vicar on earth. If the Holy Spirit isn't guiding me (and in your opinion, He isn't), how can you be sure that He's guiding you?

[quote] I don't think that anyone would deny this fact, they just would deny the fact that these men were infallible and would interpret, who "the Church" was/is. The Church was not the Roman Catholic Church and everyone that heeds to their Patriarch, the Pre-schism Church was the original rites that the Apostles themselves affirmed. The Council of Constantinople was affirmed amongst Bishops that were fallible men, led by the Holy Spirit and the council itself was affirmed by the Holy Spirit, no questions asked. Everyone of the original rites [even thoughs not in communion with Rome today]had a part ini that [and in the case of the Council of Constantinople, not a single Roman Bishop was present].[/quote]

How do you know the Spirit affirmed Constantinople I? Did He tell you? Send you a message? An email perhaps? Do you have it in writing? Or will we just have to take your word for it? Constantinople I was approved by Gregory the Great, if not before. The Pope of Rome doesn't have to be present, he only has to approve the decrees to make them binding on the whole Church.

BTW, the third decree of that council is as follows:

"The bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank [b][i]after the bishop of Rome[/i] [/b], because Constantinople is the New Rome" (emphasis added). You can stop arguing that St. Peter and his successors did not have primacy among the Eastern Churches any time now. There were no bishops from the West present. 186 Eastern bishops attended. Thirty-six Arian bishops left. 150 stayed. They approved and made certain additions to the Nicene Creed. The purpose of the Council was to fight Arianism, which only affected (infected) the East. Rome did not participate in the Arian (or any other) heresy, but the East succumbed.

[quote]This isn't just an Orthodox thought, this is what most people in Christendom today believe, and so to give credit to a particular write for the compilation of the Bible, saying that everyone else should either interpret the Bible as that rite has, or not read a bible would be grossly overexaggerating the situation, and ignoring vital pieces of history.[/quote]

That's right, Reza. The Bible does not contain objective Truth. Christ left it up to each one of us to supply our own "truth" by interpreting the Bible for ourselves. He handed us the Bible and said, 'here's all you need to know about God and about how to get to heaven -- now [b][i]you[/i][/b] figure it out.' :

It's too bad that God didn't give us any way to know the truth. He said the Truth would set us free, but He didn't tell us how we could tell Truth from self-deception (not!).

Likos

[jeffpugh]

Hehehe. Rev you're funny. Umm.. .great I forgot what I was going to say... I'll leave it at that for now...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1288180' date='Jun 4 2007, 03:55 PM']Need I point out that not everyone had a Bible for many centuries, and that not everyone has a Bible today. 50% of the world's population is illiterate. 20% of the U.S. population is functionally illiterate. These people could not read a Bible if they had one. (Source: NBC News, Tom Brokaw). Only a fraction of the world's population could read before the 18th century. It is great to have a Bible, but it is not necessary for salvation. Christ founded the teaching Church for the salvation of the world. Christians can't even agree about which writings the Bible consists of, including the Orthodox.[/quote] I don't see how this applies to my quote?

[quote]Yes. The teachings of the Catholic Church are a template for reading the NT with correct understanding about what it means. The Church cannot teach error in faith and morals.[/quote]This is an opinion, but again... most Roman Catholics that I know, don't read the bible inside of a particular "template", rather they read it and make their own conclusion, then read the Catechism seperately, they don't read an individual scripture from the Bible, then find out what the Church has said about it, then read another and find out what the church has said about that, etc...

[quote]Hmmm. When I read Mt 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19, the Holy Spirit guides me to the Truth that Christ appointed St. Peter as head of the universal (Catholic) Church and that the powers of death (RSV) or gates of hell (KJV) will never prevail against it. I read in Mt 28:20 that Jesus promised to be with His Church until the end of time. Jesus is in Heaven, Peter is His vicar on earth. If the Holy Spirit isn't guiding me (and in your opinion, He isn't), how can you be sure that He's guiding you?[/quote] How can you be sure, does St. Peter come into your bedroom with you everytime you read your bible? Does St. Peter sit over your shoulder and point out, "bob, this is what that means" or are you basing your interpretation upon those that came after St. Peter?

Note: In Galatians, St. Peter had been teaching the wrong teaching and so St. Paul rebuked him, as St. Peter was putting emphisis on the Old Covenant. I believe that the Gates of Helly won't prevail against the Church, the Pre-Schism Church, not a man.

In regards to the question of, how do I know that the Holy Spirit is guiding me, because of my testimony my friend, because of my testimony.

[quote]How do you know the Spirit affirmed Constantinople I? Did He tell you? Send you a message? An email perhaps? Do you have it in writing? Or will we just have to take your word for it? Constantinople I was approved by Gregory the Great, if not before. The Pope of Rome doesn't have to be present, he only has to approve the decrees to make them binding on the whole Church.[/quote]Actually it is written, so yes I do have it in writing. It was written by the council itself, that the Holy Spirit had affirmed it, not Gregory the Great [whom I don't even think was alive during the first council of Constantinople].

The Council of Constantinople issued it's decree regarding the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, basing it not on the Vote of the Roman Church which knew nothing of the Council but on the general vote of the Church, as witnessed by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the members of the Council who said regarding the equality of the Holy Spirit in Essence with the Father and te Son, "The Traditional proof handed over to us by our fathers who had recieved it from the Apostles is sufficient for us [book 4 Against Atomios].

I'm sure that you're aware of the Coptic Catholic Patriarch, Cyril Makar right? In his book, "The Divine element in the foundation of the Church", he wrote: "Did the Council of Nicea issue it's judgement according to Patriarchal orders or did it consider that it's decrees were in the name of the Patriarch? The Westerners claim this and it is a false claim, built on a weak argument, for according to the registered truth, Bishop Sylvester did not send letters to the Council at the time, but the Council informed the Church of Rome as well as the other Churches of it's decision as a Divine and Heavenly decision confirmed by the Holy Spirit"

[quote]That's right, Reza. The Bible does not contain objective Truth. Christ left it up to each one of us to supply our own "truth" by interpreting the Bible for ourselves. He handed us the Bible and said, 'here's all you need to know about God and about how to get to heaven -- now [b][i]you[/i][/b] figure it out.' :[/quote]

I never said that, here's what I said:

[quote]I don't think that anyone would deny this fact, they just would deny the fact that these men were infallible and would interpret, who "the Church" was/is. The Church was not the Roman Catholic Church and everyone that heeds to their Patriarch, the Pre-schism Church was the original rites that the Apostles themselves affirmed. The Council of Constantinople was affirmed amongst Bishops that were fallible men, led by the Holy Spirit and the council itself was affirmed by the Holy Spirit, no questions asked. Everyone of the original rites [even thoughs not in communion with Rome today]had a part ini that [and in the case of the Council of Constantinople, not a single Roman Bishop was present].

This isn't just an Orthodox thought, this is what most people in Christendom today believe, and so to give credit to a particular write for the compilation of the Bible, saying that everyone else should either interpret the Bible as that rite has, or not read a bible would be grossly overexaggerating the situation, and ignoring vital pieces of history.[/quote]

Truth be told, you'd like to credit the Roman Catholic Church for everything involving the Bible, but in reality, you over simply history leaving out many vital details/facts that prove otherwise. Now I'm not so arrogant and ignorant to say that the Roman Catholic Church didn't have a part, because the Roman Catholic Church did have a part, as being one of the original rites of The Pre-Schism Church but I'm not going to do what you've done and over simply the situation to credit the Roman Catholic Church [Rite] with everything good in Christianity, including the Compilation of the Bible.

Reza

[Budge]

[quote]Yah-Hoo! You made it Budge!
So if you interpet it one way,and your fellow protestant neighbor another way! Who is right ? and where do you go to find out who's right? Yes ,we do all have our own life experiences, that is my point.Where is your authority?[/quote]

I dont go by my life experiences or emotions for "authority" In fact there are many times Ive had to submit my emotions, needs and wants to God's Word.

As for Protestants.

I have never met a saved Christian who seeks after Gods Word that I havent had unity with. While we may have disagree on smaller points, pre-trib vs. post-trib...we have had unity in Christ.

Protestants who ADD to Gods Word teach falsehoods, Mormons, Unity etc Those who take away: the UUs, liberal Prots, modernists etc, its not about special skills to interpret, its about those who believe it and those who dont.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1288103' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:39 PM']Scripture exegesis for the average lay protestant is simply a mental exercise in which you read a book and get a warm and fuzzy. For the theologians often times it is a chance for you to find something new that is your own. In this, I doubt many protestants ever read and understand scripture with the same concern for salvation that the fathers had. If "all I need to do is accept Jesus into my t-mobile 5 I am in heaven" then what is the point otherwise?[/quote]
I think this was uncharitable,.......you could have something here though??? Maybe its for the retro-protestants keeping up with the times.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1288612' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:08 AM']I have never met a saved Christian who seeks after Gods Word that I havent had unity with. While we may have disagree on smaller points, pre-trib vs. post-trib...we have had unity in Christ.[/quote]

And, of course, you know which are saved and which are not?

[quote]Protestants who ADD to Gods Word teach falsehoods, Mormons, Unity etc Those who take away: the UUs, liberal Prots, modernists etc, its not about special skills to interpret, its about those who believe it and those who dont.[/quote]

You mean when Martin Luther took away eleven books and parts of two others from the canon of Scripture, you would criticize him for that? You agree that the Protestant Bible is incomplete since 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel are still missing from it?

Have you answered the Budge vs. Moses thread?

[jckinsman]

Its going to be really hard to get the protestants to stick to this subject. Its the "Bible alone" vs The Church, even though the bible and the church belong together. When they start discovering your making a whole lot of sense, they run with their pride in tow. Its tough because you want to chase them down and tell them its okay to be wrong. We've all been there,it's just not okay to stay there! There is just going to be no peace in their hearts until they go where the Lord asks them to................or should I say come home where Christ is waiting for them. JC