That is without warrant. What Christ handed down was oral tradition and the Septuagint illuminated by the oral tradition. His mandate to the Apostles was to teach the Gospel, not write a book. Their first order of business was to establish a liturgical tradition, because it is through fixed rituals and memorized prayers that a doctrine is maintained and propagated in a semi-literate world where books were luxury. Most letters were written to address specific local errors or give personal advice when a meeting face-to-face was impractical. The gospels were written later to fix in generational memory certain guideposts; it is rather clear that the evangelists did not intend to create an encyclopedia of Christ's teaching but rather put on paper the bare facts and verbatim quotes as they remembered them. Even the basic facts, such as who wrote what gospel are not known from any canonical scripture. Much of the teaching of Christ remained oral tradition till one Church Father or another wrote it down centuries later. Some imagery from that period survives in the iconographic tradition. We know how Christ looked from tradition, -- till the shroud of Turin confirmed the iconographic tradition over a thousand years later. It is true of course that the oral tradition is inherently fluid and needs to be taken on faith only inasmuch as it is consistent as a whole; consequently, the writings of the early Church fathers are not canonical and are considered authoritative only in where they have a consensus. If I can find one verse which means something concrete in context in the canonical scripture it pretty much closes the argument. If I can find one phrase in the non-canonical writings of the Fathers, no matter how clearly that father's position is seen, I need to find a consensus among others to prove that this is the teaching of Christ. That is the difference between canonical scripture and oral (i.e. patristic, written to us) tradition. If the Protestant view on the patristic tradition were like I describe, there would have been no reason for us to disagree, but then there would be no "sola scriptura". As it is, the Protestant position is not to be more cautious in the study of the Fathers, but to ignore them unless something suits their agenda (which is, exclusively, fragments from St. Augustine).
Protestantism disobeys the RCC, not the "Church that Christ established".
RCC means Roman Catholic Church. Do you obey the Eastern Catholic Church? Do you obey the Orthodox Church? The Ethiopian Church? Any other continuing-tradition Church? You do not, do you? Aside from the completely unsubstantiated "trail of blood" legend in the case of the Baptists, Protestantism cannot point to any historical patrimony leading to the 1 century. What we know from historical evidence, -- the same fathers you ignore, -- points to a highly rutualistic liturgy centered around the Eucharist and lead by a priest, who is consecrated by a bishop, who in turn obeys, or at least is supposed to obey Rome, in a hierarchical structure, similar if not identical to the hierarchies that exist today in apostolic churches. Councils were called to define doctrine as private interpretations of the scripture not consonant with the consensus of the bishops were condemned and anathemized. I can recognize my Church in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus, -- can you?
We just don't agree with you on their [the sacraments'] meaning
But a sacrament has a defined meaning. The Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ and has to come from a priest. Confession to a priest leads to absolution of sin; confession to a layman does not. These are articles of faith the Protestants do not agree with. But these are the sacraments of the historical apostolic Church. What you have, -- a memorial of the last supper and confession to a layman or to the congregation are nice things to do, but they are not the sacraments of the Church.
Who are these children who are being deprived of baptism in Protestant churches?
Many, -- indeed not all, -- Protestant churches would not baptize a child before the age of reason. This deprives that child of the grace of baptism and endangers his soul should he die unbaptized.
We deny the necessity of man-driven works
But then you deny scripture. When Christ commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. He did not say anything about man-driven, He just said, do it. The ending chapter of the Apocalypse is clear on that: "my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works". We agree, incidentally, that it is faith that drives works of charity, but we don't consider it an excuse not to "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (Phillipians 2:12).
Who is crumbling on any of these things (except one)?
Like I said, some Protestant communities do a wonderful job in the conservative vineyard; others are in complete acquiescence to the liberal agenda. But the movement away from parochial schools was a Protestant project, that has lead to the scandal of publik skulz of today. The idea that one can be justified in reading the Scripture, arriving at a private interpretation of it, and start his own church based on it, has defined modernity with its moral relativism. But this is the fundamental Protestant idea. The notion that a bunch of lawyers and politicians can go and starve an innocent disabled woman to death because an electoral process of law has lead to it, -- I am referring to Terri Schiavo, of course, -- is a direct product of the mentality according to which everyone is his own pope and therefore entitled to autonomous moral judgement.
The one aspect of moral law on which you admit Protestantism has defected en masse (Lambeth Conference, 1930) is contraception. But this is the cornerstone of moral order that was destroyed by the left, -- and now, of course, the Church is waging a lone, despairing battle to steer at least its own flock away from that sin. Once a moral approval was given to sex as a way for people to push Creator God out of the marital bedroom, Chritian marriage was destroyed. Mariage became temporary cohabitative arrangement between any kind or number of partners; love became masturbatory; child became a contraceptive failure. Adultery, perversion, divorce, abortion were to follow by an iron logic: hide from God, and you will find Satan.
Well, maybe originally, but it takes time to write things down (and make copies), and many events had not even happened yet so they couldn't have been written down. Do you believe that God mandated, regardless of whether He gave the Apostles advanced notice, that the scribes of the Bible would physically put pen to page? Did God cause the Bible to be written? You are writing as if you believe that the scribes of the (eventual) Bible made their own free will choices on what to include in their writings. Is this correct?
If I can find one phrase in the non-canonical writings of the Fathers, no matter how clearly that father's position is seen, I need to find a consensus among others to prove that this is the teaching of Christ. That is the difference between canonical scripture and oral (i.e. patristic, written to us) tradition.
I suppose it is human nature to give some merit to a view that is widely held. But does popularity make it correct? I fully admit that I start with the premise of giving "my guys" the benefit of the doubt. However, no man, nor group of men, gets my agreement if what they say doesn't pass the scriptural test as the Spirit leads me. That's why it is not the end of the world when I might disagree with my fellow churchgoers on some issues. But, if my pastor walked in some Sunday morning and announced that Jesus never claimed to be God, then I would be outta there.
As it is, the Protestant position is not to be more cautious in the study of the Fathers, but to ignore them unless something suits their agenda (which is, exclusively, fragments from St. Augustine).
In this case, our only agenda is the word of God.
I can recognize my Church in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus, -- can you?
No, I only recognize my church inasmuch as it is in Christ, not in the writings of any man.
But a sacrament has a defined meaning. ...
OK, all I meant was that we practice many similar things but we attach very different meanings to them. I just looked up "sacrament" and it appears to refer pretty much to "your" practices and interpretations. They are clearly defined.
Many, -- indeed not all, -- Protestant churches would not baptize a child before the age of reason. This deprives that child of the grace of baptism and endangers his soul should he die unbaptized.
I freely say that my church is one. :) I'm pretty sure that you all have said that an infant baptism performed in a Protestant church "CAN" be effective. However, what do Catholics say happens to victims of abortion, or to any child who dies before the age of reason (and living in a non-Christian family)? Are the salvations of those children really mainly determined by their parents?
Me: "We deny the necessity of man-driven works."
But then you deny scripture. When Christ commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. He did not say anything about man-driven, He just said, do it.
I agree. Where we disagree is where the power for these works comes from. We just say that man does not produce good works from himself or his own autonomy. Every good work comes from God. He gets all the credit and all the glory for every good work. Whatever reward in heaven we might get from God is of course up to Him. I know that when I face judgment one thing I'm NOT going to say is: "But Lord, look at all the nice things I did..."
Also, no mature Protestant is looking for any excuse not to obey God (good works) in this world. Good works automatically flow from a regenerated heart.
But the movement away from parochial schools was a Protestant project, that has lead to the scandal of publik skulz of today.
I admit I have no idea to what you are referring here. Would you elaborate?
But this is the fundamental Protestant idea [finishing a prior thought, but leading into ...]. The notion that a bunch of lawyers and politicians can go and starve an innocent disabled woman to death because an electoral process of law has lead to it, -- I am referring to Terri Schiavo, of course, -- is a direct product of the mentality according to which everyone is his own pope and therefore entitled to autonomous moral judgement.
You are really trying to blame Protestantism for what happened to Terri Schiavo??? You are too funny. I did follow the case pretty closely because of how outraged I was by it. I do believe the judge who was involved was a long standing member of a Protestant church. Did you know that they KICKED HIM OUT because of this? A most proper cleansing. Do you think Catholic churches need to do any cleansing?
The one aspect of moral law on which you admit Protestantism has defected en masse (Lambeth Conference, 1930) is contraception. But this is the cornerstone of moral order that was destroyed by the left, -- and now, of course, the Church is waging a lone, despairing battle to steer at least its own flock away from that sin.
It's interesting that you bring up an Anglican conference as an example of Protestant error. I didn't think Anglicans were "exactly" Catholic, but I did think you all were in the "same family". I take it that you say that Anglicans, the Church of England, etc. are all fully Protestant and outside the "Church of Christ", as I have been told?
As to the contraception issue, I would fully agree that it led directly to Roe (Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965). There just isn't any argument. Both cases were travesties of justice and introduced us into the world of penumbras and emanations. Very sick. However, I can't agree with you that this is all the fault of Protestants. The entire society has decayed. (You must think that we have a lot of power over you in that we convinced such an overwhelming majority of Catholics to use birth control.) "We" did not. As I have said before to others, if Catholics voted (en masse) like African Americans, most of the social issues in this country, that we agree upon, would be solved.