Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds by Fr. John Whiteford
AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?
Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.
(Excerpt) Read more at archangelsbooks.com ...
Context. Context. Context. The Council of Trent ended in 1563. It was largely a response to the *first generation* and early *second generation* of Protestantism. No Protestant of the time could possibly plead "invincible ignorance" about Catholicism, the debates were ubiquitous and all-consuming. Millions of Catholics still existed in now-Protestant lands as witnesses to the true Faith, and they were a living sign of contradiction that no Protestant could yet ignore.
Hundreds of years and dozens of generations later, we don't have a living *first generation* of Protestants who made a conscious choice to rebel against the Church. Nearly all adherents of the various Protestant denominations have had family ties to them for many generations. They have developed self-contained theologies that ignore or are not even aware of the Catholic patrimony of their more diatant ancestors. Such people *do* labor, in many, many cases, under the "invincible ignorance" that Pius IX spoke about.
God is not a monster who condemns people for things they have not reasonable expectation of knowing. The Church knows this, and it does not anathematize modern Protestants who are so long cut off from the true Church that they don't realize their error.
I should point out, however, two qualifiers to this. For a catechized Catholic to renounce his or her Faith in favor of anything else (including any variety of Protestantism), and subsequently to die in this state of affairs, is courting spiritual disaster. They are in no different position here than the original "Reformers," all of whom were once Catholic. The other qualifier involves any non-Catholic, today or in any other time, who, knowing the truth of the Catholic Faith, refuses to embrace it.
God *may* cut a lot of slack to non-Catholic Christians (and, by virtue of their baptisms, the Church acknowledges that they ARE Christians, believe it or not!) who labor in His vineyard even while handicapped, but only to the extent that their consciences truly tell them the Catholic Church is false. The Church, which teaches in truth, is the Body of Christ; indeed, the Truth IS Christ, and its fullness cannot be renounced consciously without consequences.
All of this is not just some academic exercise. Unity in faith was quite evidently important to Jesus. On the night He was betrayed, doubtless somewhat preoccupied with facing a heinous death that He already knew the full scope of and dealing with the human fear that engendered, He managed to focus His prayer to His Father on the unity of faith His followers should have. "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:20-21, but read the whole chapter in context.)
I am a lifelong Catholic and no one has ever discouraged me from Bible reading. We have three readings from the Bible every Sunday. The church ought to maintain the authority of interpretation because the alternative is sectarianism (which Jesus didn't seem too crazy about) and folks believing that their sin ain't really sin, i.e. homosexuals. The church was given the authority by Christ to state authoritavely what is canon and what is not.
The authority of the Church comes from Scripture. The Catholic Church gave us the canon of Scripture, Martin Luther came up with the abridged edition which most protestants are familiar with. Here's some questions I would like answered: By what authority could Luther claim to determine canon? And if he could determine canon, what's to stop anyone from adding or subtracting whatever books they like? Why should people be allowed to determine which books they will recognize as Scripture?
What would be the need? Anyone sufficiently interested in feeling persecuted by the Catholic Church to dig-up the verbiage of a 440-year-old Ecumenical Council can certainly dig-up more modern slants on the same themes.
There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils in Church history. Every one of them has disciplinary canons that have been superseded once, twice or more. The only aspects of these councils that the Church considers infallible involve doctrine. The doctrines cited in the canons you bring-up are infallible. Those doctrines are still in force. But the canons you cite, while mentioning a doctrinal point in each, are actually disciplinary, since their whole purpose is to anathematize. But those circumstances active in 1563 no longer apply in the same way today. The Church does not rewrite history and edit Council documents. The Church's teaching is clear enough through subsequent pronouncements that revisionist history is not needed.
Right. It seems to me that you define different orders such as Franciscan or Dominican as a "sectlet", whatever that is. Truth is they are all part of the One Holy and Apostolic Church. They are either in the Catholic Church or they are not.
Protestants on the other hand do not have a Protestant Church, they have Many Protestant Churches with many different Sects. As to the number, I have not read anything that seems authoritavely conclusive.
I find it funny that many Protestants bristle at the word protestant the same way liberals bristle at the word liberal. So much so that they deny the "label".
There is only one Catholic Church. One and only one.
Who's bristling at the term Protestant? I wear it proudly.
As far as the Catholic Sectlets, I'm no talking about the Orders (thougt if you were being totally honest, you would admit that many of the Protestant demoninations would qualify as one)
I'm talking about:
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA)
Liberal Catholic Church
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church
Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite
And others, some of which have their own Pope.
Just because these tiny churches call themselves Catholic doesn't make them so. They are schismatics and are outside of the Catholic Church. Most of them have more bishops than faithful anyways.
Also, they don't have their own popes because they reject papal authority.
I sincerely doubt the pope was endorsing your sort of pseudo-Biblicism. We define things considerably different than you do.
Jesus' authority was innate, not derived from Scripture. He is God, Scripture does not reside above God.
Not as many???? There are less than 30 churches that fall under the authority of the Pope. There are some 30,000 varying Protestant groups. At leats be accurate with your assertions.
What ever you say.
What ever you say.
Interesting quotes, except that ours are NOT traditions of men.
The Church was founded by Christ, not the Bible. The Church therefore derives it's authority from Christ, not the Bible. You upheld an error.
Good, I like that. Protestants that are evangalical in nature or belong to a denomination called "non-denominational" are the ones that either bristle at the term or simply do not know that they are protestant. (in my experience).
As far as the Catholic Sectlets, I'm no talking about the Orders (thougt if you were being totally honest, you would admit that many of the Protestant demoninations would qualify as one)
I agree, I'm not going to count every church as a separate sect, I would limit it to doctrinal differences before I would recognize it as a separate sect. That is why I steered clear of the number factor, I have not seen a list of the various sects and why they qualify as being in a distinct sect. As untarians were considered protestant at one point, (they certainly came out of protestantism,)but they are barely Christian, if at all. They could call themselves protestant, but as they no longer even profess Christ or the unique status of Scripture, why bother? The point being that I could decide that I am the Pope and call myself Catholic but it ain't necessarily so.
Where can truth be found? Only the bible is incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals. The Word of God is incapable of misleading, deceiving, or disappointing unlike institutions of men.
Why do men believe that other men put together the canon of Scripture? If holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write, wouldn't the same Holy Spirit preserve that Word?
Fr.Whiteford discounts the "invisible church", and that, it seems to me, pushes the Holy Spirit to one side and subordinates His work to the institution of the Orthodox church.
***The Church was founded by Christ, not the Bible. The Church therefore derives it's authority from Christ, not the Bible. You upheld an error.***
I find your implication that to derive authority from the Word of God is not the same as deriving authority from the one who gave that Word rather disturbing.
I know that, according to Catholics, the ultimate authority on earth is an old man sitting in a chair. You are free to believe that. As for we Reformers:
No king but Christ.
Anyone who is following a religion has got it all wrong from the get go.
And I say this as a Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.