Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
The liberals in the Catholic Church should be called Neo-Protestants because their spirit is Protestant, not Catholic.
Protestantism is built upon the Rock of Christ Jesus and the authority of scripture.
Agreed. I said just that in my third paragraph.
Touche. (I'm relieved that some here on FR can still debate contentious issues with comity and mutual respect. Thank you.)
Actually, they are secular humanists, and their like can be found in all Protestant denominations. And we should all realize that they are a far greater danger to Christianity than any disagreement between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants will ever be.
As He did throughout history, God preserved a faithful remnant among His people.
That remnant wasn't at Trent.
Within Roman Catholic ranks are numerous factions, particularly within the traditionalist ranks. I have read their disputations, and they are as contentious with rival groups within the overall traditionalist group as, say, conservative Calvinists are toward separatist fundamentalists. While all traditionalist groups accept the concept of the Papacy and apostolic succession, some believe that the liturgical changes made in the wake of Vatican II have invalidated the Mass and Holy Orders, thus making most sacraments increasingly invalid, especially as older priests die and retire and are replaced by improperly ordained priests. Others, such as Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's father) are sede vacantists, believing that there has not been a valid Pope since the death of Pius XII 47 years ago.
Many sede vacantists regard those who accept the validity of the current Pope as compromisers, even if they are themselves traditionalists who support the Tridentine Mass and believe in extra ecclessia nulla salus. All of the traditionalist factions regard themselves as staunch Catholics, and better ones than those who supported or at least accepted the changes in their church since 1960.
There are other dissidents on the left as well, such as the so-called liberation theologians. In any case, the Roman Catholic Church cannot claim strength in its unity as opposed to Protestant divisiveness. Even if sola Scriptura is insufficient, people can and do fight over the Magisterium.
And the entirety of your own answers are nonexistant. So much for decrying the tendency to simply duck the question.
In quoting 1Cor. 4:6, you ignore the same writer in 2 Thess. 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Here, not only does St. Paul allude to "traditions," he even says that they sometimes come in an oral (unwritten) form.
Tradition had already found development in the early Church. Much of what Christ taught was not written down in the Gospels, and no reasonable person would suppose that the remainder was entirely dealt with in the remainder of the New Testament. John 21:25 is sufficient testimony to that.
ALL of the so-called extra-biblical tradtions of the Catholic Church find at least their seed in the teaching and history of the Church during the apostolic era. Some of them were not included in the writings of St. Paul or in the Universal Epistles because they were not relevant to specific issues such writings were meant to address (much of the New Testament outside of the Gospels and Acts is written as damage control, after all, against spurious teaching of this or that). Many things taught by the Church then as now did not need specific treatment in the New Testament writings because they were not controversial or were so much common knowledge that they were "givens."
The fundamental problem with the argument against alleged non-biblical teachings finds its foundations here. Sola Scriptura was embraced as a concept not because of any specific scriptural warrant (the Scriptures never say "the Scriptures alone" in so many words) but because it was a convenient dodge for Luther and the others to get around Church teachings they didn't like, purgatory serving here as a prominent example.
Tradition in the early Church is manifest in Scripture. It is clear that the writings of St. Paul and everyone else were merely corroborating oral teaching within the Church already extant before a single word of the New Testament was written. St. Paul himself didn't write a word of his contribution to the New Testament until he wrote to the Thessalonians around AD 48. Specific oral teachings find their way into the written NT as anecdotal asides (eg: Acts 20:35), clearly indicating a rich treasury of such existed that never found its way into the canon. Note how Acts 20:35 has a distinct flavor to it that shows that people already had a deep familiarity with the deposit of faith even *without* its being written down. So, too, with some of the "extra-biblical" Catholic (and Orthodox!) teachings found to be so abhorent by some of the Sola Scriptura adherents today.
Perhaps the problem is best described this way: modern Protestantism, now nearly 500 years removed from the living vine which is the fullness of the Faith, is so far removed from its own historical patrimony that it cannot see it for what it is. It looks at Tradition as a set of "accretions," whereas the Catholic Church looks at the removal of Tradition as a source of revealed truth to be a "deletion" of part of God's word by the Protestants, and 1500+ years after the founding of the Church, at that.
In the end, it all comes down to what constitutes "Authority" in the body of Christian believers. I would submit that the divine Providence of God would have preserved the authority of the teaching Church intact, per Matthew 16:18-19 dovetailed with Matthew 20:16-20, Colossians 1:23, 1Timothy 2:15 and Galatians 1:8, among others.
If God created an inspired source of truth in the Bible (and He did!), He clearly meant it to be a source of Truth without division. For Truth cannot be self-contradictory. Yet recent Christian history alone shows how quickly and thoroughly mere human lights can stray from a unity in Truth. The Church itself, primarily through St. Peter and his successors, was meant to be the guarantor of the required fidelity to the Truth. Question: If revelation is inerrant and inspired, would it not seem that the will of God is that it would have unity of interpretation for all time? Otherwise, what good is Truth that is subject to so much division? If that unity in fidelity to interpretation was lost or bastardized early-on, as Protestant theory requires we believe, then, again, what good was the presentation of that Truth to the world to begin with? Where is divine Providence in all of this, where a mockery of the promises of Matthew 28:20 seems to have been suffered by Almighty God for nearly 1500 years, until the "Reformers" finally straightened things out?
Indeed, and they all are one, be they Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist or Non-Denominational. The church is not one of those organizations, but members of all of those organizations are included in the "Church" which is simply the members of the Body of Christ or those who have been saved by God's grace through faith.
IMO the divisions of sects does more to unite the Body of Christ than to divide it. A single heriarchical organization which calls itself "THE Church" is a recipe for disaster. Church history is replete with examples of why that is true. Our allegiance should not be to any heirarchical organization, but to Christ alone. The "Church" is headed by Christ and Christ alone and not by any man or committee of men. I do not deny that you are a member of that Church. Do you deny that I am?
True. Liberals, as commonly understood today, are plentiful under both the Protestant and Catholic umbrellas. They are little more that the secular humanists you posit, brushed with a thin patina of Christian asides used to justify their membership in the various denominations.
My only intent was to point-out that Gamecock's Catholic "sectlets" are comprised mostly of these very secular humanists, and, discounting them as true Catholics, most of the "sectlets" are thereby removed from his assertion.
Luther's Luciferian personal behaviors and teachings eschewed me of being a Lutheran.
And so now ... you follow the pristine popes, eh ?
I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?
I believe that it is perfectly understandable that fallible men will not agree upon every Christian teaching ... even as based upon the scriptures.
The scriptures are are inexhaustible source of spirtual wisdom ... and many truths within it's pages are only comprehended by the wisest and most spiritual of saints.
It might be more profitable to speak of where Protestants ... and Catholics ... and the Orthodox ... agree ... as to their beliefs ...
... for it is upon these that we base our unity.
The Nicene Creed is a good example of such agreement ...The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
But it seems if you were to actually believe that, you would be anathematized along with the rest of us Protestants per the Council of Trent.
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation and that men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification let him be anathema." -- Council of Trent, Seventh session, On the sacraments in general, Canon
Trent has been affirmed by every Vatican Council. According to Rome, we are all cursed.
Do you think one who believes Ephesians 2:8-9 is going to hell?
Not of works, lest any man should boast.""For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
An excellent response, Quester. I tip my hat to you!
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.