Protestant feeling the pull of Catholicism questions - Page 6

M1Buckeye

Joined: Jul 10, 2021

Posts: 1,033

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

Jabin said:
Bob Lee said:
Jabin said:
You are making my point. You rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. You cannot also rely on the Church to establish the Bible's authority. That's circular.

Where did I say their authority (either of them) is derived from each other. To be clear, you've gone from one infallible rule of faith to zero infallible rules of faith?
You are completely missing the point.

And to be clear, I view the Bible as the only source of authority and the basis of our faith. I put little to no trust on the traditions of fallible men and their institutions.

Amen. Paul warned us against false doctrines coming into Jesus's church. Catholics ignore this and many other teachings.

Galatians 1:8-9 esv
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Thaddeus73

Joined: Nov 28, 2017

Posts: 1,589

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

4:44p, 6/13/23

AG

Quote:
Paul warned us against false doctrines coming into Jesus's church. Catholics ignore this and many other teachings.

Exactly backwards, Oh Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist denier...

4

M1Buckeye

Joined: Jul 10, 2021

Posts: 1,033

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Thaddeus73 • 5:21p, 6/13/23

Thaddeus73 said:
Quote:
Paul warned us against false doctrines coming into Jesus's church. Catholics ignore this and many other teachings.
Exactly backwards, Oh Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist denier...

Please do me the courtesy of not attributing claims to me that I have not made. I have not discussed the eucharist in any manner whatsoever. I look forward to your retraction and your apology.

Zobel

Joined: Oct 12, 2006

Posts: 31,282

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Jabin • 5:44p, 6/13/23

AG

Quote:
Zobel sees error in the RCC "to the point of anathema" yet also is adamant that the Church (apparently the RCC since that is what he's referencing) has been lead [sic] into the truth by the Spirit "and is indeed the pillar and foundation of the truth".

The answer is simple. I don't think the RCC is right, because they're in schism with the Church. Just to make sure there's no confusion, there are things where we disagree, and the disagreements are mutually exclusive. One party is wrong. I think they're wrong, and demonstrably so. But - this disagreement does not lead either party to assume that there is no right party, which is what I think is so troubling about the tu quoque argument presented.

Quote:
Also, I am curious what authority Zobel relies upon for his conclusion that the RCC is wrong on anything.

It's a clear appeal to authority, of the Church, which I believe to be the Orthodox Church. Where there is variance in belief, that would be heterodoxy, and I believe the Orthodox Church is right. I am kind of surprised that this is not clear, sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
One, that's not true.

Ok. Then if the scriptures themselves aren't axiomatic, how do you derive the canon of scripture?

Quote:
That is, from whence do they get their authority?

I actually answered this a couple of times in this thread, and provided scripture to the point earlier directly to you. Here is a link. The Church is a community, an assembly of people...properly, a People or nation... in scriptural terms an ethnos. That nation has a leader, who is both King and Priest, Christ Jesus. From Him all authority flows.

Quote:
I'll turn the RCC argument on its face - they incorrectly claim that the church created the Canon, but if so, then from what did the church obtain its authority? They constantly point to the verse in which Jesus is talking to Peter and states that upon this rock I will build my church (which can mean a lot of things). But that then becomes a circular argument - that is, the church is turning to Scripture for its own authority, the Scripture that the church claimsh as authority only because of it.

Protestants, on the other hand, don't believe it was the church councils that created the canon. The canon existed long before the church councils. From history, it is clear that the primary purpose of the early councils on the Bible was to exclude books being proposed as additions to the canon, not to create a canon from nothing.

I think that a lot of RCC amateur apologists incorrectly teach what you're saying - that the canon was established by some council or other. The canon wasn't definitively closed by any council in the West until Trent, and truthfully has never been formally set in the East. It was de facto closed by councils and canonical lists and use much earlier - 5th or 6th century. But the East has variance to this day between local churches on what is and isn't scripture. We've talked about how I understand scripture to have been formed before, here and here.

Quote:
Protestants believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating and it is the testimony of the Holy Spirit within our individual lives that provides the strongest evidence that they are God-breathed.

this makes the canon of scripture itself open to individual interpretation. how do you exclude the Book of Mormon then? Surely Mormons will testify to strong evidence that it is scripture. What this does in effect is make the canon of scripture subordinate to your opinion based on personal experience.

Quote:
It's the same testimony of the Holy Spirit that Zobel and the RCC rely on in advising posters how to choose a church.

I think it is kind of strange that in order to affirm that the Holy Spirit can act in an individual, it must not be able to act in a community. I don't see these ideas in opposition at all. The Spirit works in individuals, and also in the life of the community. Some promises are to and about individuals, and some to and about the Church.

By affirming the activity of the Spirit in the Community I am in no way denying the activity of the Spirit in individuals.

3 edits

Zobel

Joined: Oct 12, 2006

Posts: 31,282

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Wakesurfer817 • 6:01p, 6/13/23

AG

I think the bit you're calling "unwritten analysis" is probably best understood as the idea of dogmatic fact, the life of the Church in Christ. I've written it about it here before - quoting myself to save time...

Quote:
The Church, from the beginning, abides in dogmatic fact. The life of the Church is the life in Christ, and He alone guides, leads, and shepherds the Church. To be in the Church is to encounter Christ as a community. From this reality, this dogmatic fact, comes dogma. Dogmatic fact is unchanging. Dogma comes into being.

Dogma is an expression of the dogmatic fact of the reality of the life in Christ. For example, that Yahweh the God of Israel is three Persons is something that was revealed in the life of Israel and the Church. From it, the declaration of the dogma of the Trinity comes. These are things you must believe, and if you do not believe them, you are outside of the faith - because you are not in the same reality of experience. The list of dogmatic statements a Christian must accept are limited. For the most part, the symbol of faith covers them.

Finally, theologoumenon are things that are opinions about God. This is gray area, or things which are not revealed divinely, outside of authority. You may have a theologoumenon or disagree and still be in the Church. Most disagreements in my experience are theologoumenon.

and I wrote in a different discussion a couple years ago -

Quote:
Ecumenical councils, or I suppose more properly their canons and declarations, are not encyclopedias of practice and faith. They are reactionary in nature, they were called against specific heresies, schisms, or controversies. At the time of their calling, in some, the fathers also took the opportunity to issue canons or standards. There are local councils that are called regularly for administrative purposes.

Ecumenical councils are not the rule of faith. They don't "develop" doctrine. The faith is what it is. The councils only reaffirm the faith in light of heresy, and if that requires additional technical language and definition, they provide it. They never add or develop anything new. They merely define. The faith and doctrine of the Apostles was complete and needed no development. The faith produces the councils, not the other way around.

Maybe I can clarify a little bit. The primary defense of the Faith is dogmatic fact of the liturgical life of the church. Tradition is both existential and authoritative. It is existential because dogmatic fact is what we "live" in as Christians. The services, the scriptures, the readings, the prayers, the mysteries, (really, those same four things from Acts 2:42) are all the "water" we swim in as "fish". This, (that is, orthopraxis, practice) is how we learn to identify orthodoxy, belief and worship. It becomes authoritative when it is used as a criteria to judge, to help us "rightly divide the word of truth".

the only way to really learn the faith is to live it. it is a way of life, not some collection of facts or rules or laws. that's why I think the misunderstanding of "Tradition" as unwritten and therefore opposed to written scripture persists.

the reality is that there is just Tradition, which is the Apostolic faith and teaching, which is sometimes written, sometimes not. some of the writings are read aloud in Church and are therefore scripture; some are read in the homes and are for benefit. some writings are hymns, which are like scripture but used differently. some are prayers which are also used differently. and some of the things written down are doctrinal or dogmatic statements that crystallize or clarify parts of the faith into formal terms, usually using philosophical language. As we see in St Paul, tradition or "that which is passed down" includes more than just epistles. drawing one specific part of Holy Tradition out of this framework does damage to all of it.

3

BluHorseShu

Joined: May 8, 2018

Posts: 7,003

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Blanco Jimenez • 6:44p, 6/13/23

AG

Blanco Jimenez said:
This may be a TLDR for a lot of folks but I've lurked here a long time and I'm in search of some answers. A little background, I've been Protestant my whole life. I grew up an ELCA Lutheran and converted to Southern Baptist in my mid 20's because the ELCA had, in my opinion, gone entirely too far left and away from God's word. Fast forward a few years and I've married another Baptist and have kids.

There is something about the Catholic Mass that has always been a draw for me. It's become something that has been on my heart and mind a lot lately. I honestly have been feeling that as Baptist, our church service is just too casual. Not in dress but in reverence for the Lord and the Word. On major church holidays, I take my family to church with my parents in the Lutheran church because I feel the need for the formality, but even this Easter, it wasn't near enough.

I have the desire to learn more. I feel like I need to learn more but there's a few roadblocks. First is that I am very involved in my congregation. I just served on our pastor search committee for close to a year to replace our pastor. My wife has even been asked if I had interest in being a deacon in the congregation. I feel like I have a strong personal relationship with my Savior even though I constantly fall short of where I should be as a Christian.

Second, my wife is a cradle to the grave Southern Baptist. She has very strong anti-Catholic stances and feelings and makes that known. My sister converted to Catholicism when she married so I get to hear about it sometimes. It is important to me that my family goes to church together. I want my wife and sons with me in church.

My question here is, how can I reconcile this? I know many conversations will need to be had with my family, but I foresee major road blocks. How can I learn more about the Church before I have these conversations? I also want to make sure that these feelings I have about Catholicism are real and that it's truly something I want to explore more.

I appreciate any guidance on this. I know a lot of you are strong in your faith and look forward to learning more.

Just one more point and it's probably one made here before…It's fine to post up your inquiry on this forum …but you MUST really take your own deep dive and research this from more knowledgeable people . I highly suggest looking at , in edition to form Protestant Scott Hahn, authors Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn. All excellent Catholic apologists . I and everyone here are biased in our reasons for our faith. I would also look at Eastern Orthodox apologists. EO is in schism with the RCC but we still hold fast to a majority of beliefs . Only you can make the choice. I will leave you with a final thought that I rarely share. There was a time when I was discerning joining the RCC, and I was so afraid of making the wrong choice (based on all I was taught about the Church not being scriptural, worshipping idols/Mary, etc because I did not want to lead my kids down the "wrong" path. So it took a couple of years before I finally committed the time to research it. I had listened so much to other people telling me I'd 'be damned' or worse. My love and relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ is more strong today that it has ever been.

7

Captain Pablo

Joined: Aug 7, 2009

Posts: 48,035

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to B-1 83 • 5:18p, 6/15/23

AG

B-1 83 said:
Teacher Wife '82 was Catholic and I was raised Southern Baptist (brother is a Community Baptist minister), but I readily agreed to have the kids baptized in the Catholic Church. I even attended Mass with them for years before I converted.

I, too, loved the Mass and so many aspects of The Church. I was amazed at all of the completely wrong things I was "taught" about the Catholic faith in my previous 26 years……. When I joined the Knights of Columbus, they asked all of us who were converts in one ceremony to stand up. The priest told everyone to look "these will likely be better Catholics than those of you raised in The Church".

No doubt about it