The Banned said:

---

I found this ~15 minute video very interesting as a Protestant tries to wrap his head around the idea that the earliest church fathers (2nd-4th centuries) probably would not be capable of pastoring a modern Protestant church. What I found most interesting was the idea that "I am Protestant, so I'm not sure how to apply this to my faith" versus "if this was what the church fathers wrote, should I stay Protestant"?

To be clear, I had a moment like this about 10 years ago. Raised Catholic and fell away. Found a renewed zeal in a Protestant church and thought I'd stay there forever until I had to deal with this conundrum. I went with assuming I didn't know better than they did and went back to the Catholic Church. Would love to hear the thoughts of other Protestants on how they view this issue.

---

To be honest, they've thought of a rebuttal to these as well. The church fathers are actually crypto-romanists, who aren't mentioned in scripture anyway, and the "true church" existed until only about the mid 3rd century and then a kernel went underground and kept the light of true belief burning for 1200+ years until it was rediscovered by the 2nd or 3rd generation reformers.

This is a subject I desire to have a greater understanding of, to be honest. Mostly just for my own appetite that likes history and knowing it can be enriching. I can greatly identify with the idea a lot of churches I have been involved with in my past have not even mentioned recent church history, other than a coffee mug we got once with a quote from Iraneus on it.

One basic question that might help me would be answering what exactly a Church Father is?

At the end of the day, I have no issue with this concept of continuity with the Church Fathers, as long as it is bound by scripture. Church Fathers are broken men just like you and I.

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

We share them, ultimately with the Word of God as the authority. I liked the explanation from this video clip (starts around 19:15 to ~23:30. The whole thing is 2 parts but does a good job running through many of the distinctions in the LCMS if interested.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

---

ETA: I've never felt more unwelcome in my life than the time I found myself at a Catholic mass. The only other time I've been more uncomfortable was when I found myself at a Pentecostal service…but at least there I felt welcome. It's interesting to me how exclusive the RCC is when Jesus and the NT is all about inclusivity. In past posts we've discussed judging others' salvation - the RCC seems to be the poster child for this practice. How would the early church father's respond to this?

Whoops…I see I responded vs ETA. It's early…give me grace, haha.

Donut Holestein said:

---

We share them, ultimately with the Word of God as the authority. I liked the explanation from this video clip (starts around 19:15 to ~23:30. The whole thing is 2 parts but does a good job running through many of the distinctions in the LCMS if interested.

---

I'll need to check out the quotes he's using. Saying that the council if Trent condemned the gospel wasn't a great start, in my opinion. Doesn't seem all that unbiased.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

---

ETA: I've never felt more unwelcome in my life than the time I found myself at a Catholic mass. The only other time I've been more uncomfortable was when I found myself at a Pentecostal service…but at least there I felt welcome. It's interesting to me how exclusive the RCC is when Jesus and the NT is all about inclusivity. In past posts we've discussed judging others' salvation - the RCC seems to be the poster child for this practice. How would the early church father's respond to this?

Whoops…I see I responded vs ETA. It's early…give me grace, haha.

---

Would you mind describing what you faced that was so unwelcoming?

1. the apostle certainly were fallible. What we teach is infallible is the church Christ left us, and even then, only in the matter of faith and morals. Plenty of bad people in every church. The teaching authority and its teachings are what Jesus left us infallibly.

2. The video specifically talks about theology. Could a church father sign on to your statement of beliefs was the example he used. Would they accept your view of baptism and communion? The answer is almost assuredly no. Most evangelical church's today would tell the successors of the apostles that they got the fundamental teachings of Christ wrong. Hearing a sermon from an on fire Baptist preacher would likely get their approval, but walking out of a service without the Eucharist would have been a complete non-starter. I'm sure they'd be disappointed with the average Catholic parish, but they recognize the teaching as their own.

3. This is something I struggle with. Obviously reform was needed. But to me reform, by definition, is required to remain unified. If I own a company and want to reform it, but we end up with a bunch of new companies split off, it wasn't a reform. It was somewhere between a revolt and a secession. The idea of staying faithful to your bishop nips Protestantism right in the bud. I don't see any of them getting on board with evangelical churches.

Now I don't blame anyone here for not being a Catholic. We are all inheriting a 500 year mess, formed by parents than inherited a 450 year mess and on down the line. I don't judge anyone for their current faith tradition. What I do want to do is take a look at where this all started and hoe we can work on getting the band back together. Christians accomplish so much good in the world, but I can't help but wonder how much more effective we could be if we were all rowing in the same direction.

The Banned said:

---

Now I don't blame anyone here for not being a Catholic.

---

Brother, we are all part of the Holy, Catholic Church.

Of course the ultimate irony is labeling the Catholic (universal) Church as Roman

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Now I don't blame anyone here for not being a Catholic.

---

Brother, we are all part of the Holy, Catholic Church.

Of course the ultimate irony is labeling the Catholic (universal) Church as Roman

---

Good thing we don't call ourselves the Roman church! Roman Catholic is a reference to the Latin rite of the mass. Plenty of other types of Catholics out there that are in communion with Rome but aren't "Roman" Catholics. Maybe check out a Byzantine church and see if it's more your speed.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

ETA: I've never felt more unwelcome in my life than the time I found myself at a Catholic mass. The only other time I've been more uncomfortable was when I found myself at a Pentecostal service…but at least there I felt welcome. It's interesting to me how exclusive the RCC is when Jesus and the NT is all about inclusivity. In past posts we've discussed judging others' salvation - the RCC seems to be the poster child for this practice. How would the early church father's respond to this?

---

I would also like to hear more about your experience at a Catholic Church. What made you feel so "unwelcome"? I can certainly understand maybe feeling uncomfortable or a little bit lost in the Liturgy. But what, specifically, made you feel unwelcome?

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

The Banned said:

---

1. the apostle certainly were fallible. What we teach is infallible is the church Christ left us, and even then, only in the matter of faith and morals. Plenty of bad people in every church. The teaching authority and its teachings are what Jesus left us infallibly.

2. The video specifically talks about theology. Could a church father sign on to your statement of beliefs was the example he used. Would they accept your view of baptism and communion? The answer is almost assuredly no. Most evangelical church's today would tell the successors of the apostles that they got the fundamental teachings of Christ wrong. Hearing a sermon from an on fire Baptist preacher would likely get their approval, but walking out of a service without the Eucharist would have been a complete non-starter. I'm sure they'd be disappointed with the average Catholic parish, but they recognize the teaching as their own.

3. This is something I struggle with. Obviously reform was needed. But to me reform, by definition, is required to remain unified. If I own a company and want to reform it, but we end up with a bunch of new companies split off, it wasn't a reform. It was somewhere between a revolt and a secession. The idea of staying faithful to your bishop nips Protestantism right in the bud. I don't see any of them getting on board with evangelical churches.

Now I don't blame anyone here for not being a Catholic. We are all inheriting a 500 year mess, formed by parents than inherited a 450 year mess and on down the line. I don't judge anyone for their current faith tradition. What I do want to do is take a look at where this all started and hoe we can work on getting the band back together. Christians accomplish so much good in the world, but I can't help but wonder how much more effective we could be if we were all rowing in the same direction.

---

I appreciate your final paragraph. I've said before, you seem to be very genuine and sincere and I so appreciate that. All too often we can be at each other's throats.

Thanks for your #2; with your phrasing I see how you and the man in the video are addressing those things as theology, not tradition. I'm not sure what more to say on this at the moment.

The Church Fathers are great! The problem is the way they are handled by the Church. There was some wide variety in Christian thought in the early centuries, and those vast assortments of writing and thought have since been very carefully curated to support the current position of the various Churches. This is why you see much difference emphases on Church Fathers from different traditions. Rome is very big on Augustine and Gregory 1, but the East not so much. The East is very big on the Cappadocian Fathers, but I've rarely seen the West Church quote them. All of them lived centuries prior to the Schism, so why the difference? To me it is clear. To be blunt, there is an agenda. The Church looks through the writings of the esteemed early Christians, elevates some to being authoritative Fathers, and minimizes or ignores the rest. To me this lends a false sense of uniformity and hierarchy to the ancient, early Church that I don't think existed. That false sense of historical strict uniformity and hierarchy is then used to try to enforce a contemporaneous strict uniformity and hierarchy.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

ETA: I've never felt more unwelcome in my life than the time I found myself at a Catholic mass. The only other time I've been more uncomfortable was when I found myself at a Pentecostal service…but at least there I felt welcome. It's interesting to me how exclusive the RCC is when Jesus and the NT is all about inclusivity. In past posts we've discussed judging others' salvation - the RCC seems to be the poster child for this practice. How would the early church father's respond to this?

---

I would also like to hear more about your experience at a Catholic Church. What made you feel so "unwelcome"? I can certainly understand maybe feeling uncomfortable or a little bit lost in the Liturgy. But what, specifically, made you feel unwelcome?

---

Protestants going to catholic mass, through the telling of the Seinfeld Soup Nazi episode.
(I am sure plenty of protestant parodies can be shared)

Thanks for sharing that. I can easily see how a Protestant going to catholic mass with no prep could walk away feeling like "what the heck was that!?" And I hate that you weren't prepped to have to stay in your seat. That's tough, and I'm sorry. I'm assuming they just didn't even think to tell you? Either way, don't blame you for not walking away with the warm fuzzies

Seems like you've learned a little more about transubstantiation and what we're saying when we mean when someone shouldn't receive. I have, at times, been not been ready to receive. It's a present tense, not an eternal judgement. Right now, in this moment, the believer's heart is not in the right place for this specific sacrament. Not a condemnation to hell. And for baptized Catholics only we can do that introspection. The priest doesn't know our sins unless we told him, in which case we were probably in confession repenting of them. The priest doesn't know if we hold to the true teaching of the Eucharist. It's on us to not receive when we are in a fallen state.

But for Protestants, this is easy. If you don't believe it is the true body and blood of Jesus, you aren't ready. Even people wanting to convert aren't ready to receive. This is found early in the church (like 100-200 AD). The catechumen goes through a process, even back then. The idea of just showing up, professing and being fully ready is a new phenomena that is only possible in a setting which has desacrimentalized things like communion and baptism. It's not that we don't want to commune with you. It's that we want you to know what you're signing up for so that, as scriptures say, you don't eat and drink your own condemnation. There is a man in my parish that has struggled with homosexual feelings for decades. He's in in 70s. Sometimes he goes up to receive. Sometimes he doesn't. It's an incredibly honorable thing he's doing to make sure he's right with the Lord in spirit and not just word.

As for the rest of it, I get it. I felt that when I left the church. It all seems so dry. When I came back it was shown to me that the word I'm looking for is "solemn". Catholics should agree with the statement that church is to equip and edify saints, but it does not follow that is required in the solemn worship service. The focus of the mass is the sacrifice of Christ. If you get a good homily, that's a bonus. The only way to get both is to run mass well over an hour. We should do that, but we live in such a busy world that any commitment over an hour is seen as a nuisance to many people. They want to get to travel ball or watch the NFL. Priests should not succumb to this pressure, but it's the reality they face. Protestant pastors feel this pressure too, but they don't have the mass. That's a full 30 minutes that they have to their teaching "advantage". But is it the historical faith?

The petitions are in there (right after offertory). The teaching is in there (right after the gospel reading). It's just generally done poorly, which is a shame. But it is done well at some parishes. Despite that, it can still have that less than emotional feel precisely because we're focused on the very solemn event of Jesus' death. It's why we petition for mercy so many times during the mass.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

---

Because you aren't measuring teachings against words on paper. You're measuring teachings against your INTERPRETATION of words on paper. We all have our interpretative lense, including me. That was the point of Jesus leaving a church and not a Bible. I firmly believe this is why Jesus never commanded a single disciple to write down His words. The authority to teach was left. Some of that teaching was written down. Some was not. We can get into the fact that sola scriptura isn't found in the Bible either, but that argument falls under the larger umbrella of "who gets to determine what the hard passages mean".

All I know is it isn't me. Even to pope doesn't presume to know it all. What we do have is a church that was left. A church full of brilliant, spirit filled men that worked through many of these issues long ago. They cannot contradict scripture, so in that sense, they are bound. But where scripture is not clear, either we figure it out for ourselves or we go to the primary sources.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The Church Fathers are great! The problem is the way they are handled by the Church. There was some wide variety in Christian thought in the early centuries, and those vast assortments of writing and thought have since been very carefully curated to support the current position of the various Churches. This is why you see much difference emphases on Church Fathers from different traditions. Rome is very big on Augustine and Gregory 1, but the East not so much. The East is very big on the Cappadocian Fathers, but I've rarely seen the West Church quote them. All of them lived centuries prior to the Schism, so why the difference? To me it is clear. To be blunt, there is an agenda. The Church looks through the writings of the esteemed early Christians, elevates some to being authoritative Fathers, and minimizes or ignores the rest. To me this lends a false sense of uniformity and hierarchy to the ancient, early Church that I don't think existed. That false sense of historical strict uniformity and hierarchy is then used to try to enforce a contemporaneous strict uniformity and hierarchy.

---

Very interesting point. It can really seem that way at first glance, but I think a deeper read shows otherwise. For example, you can find writing by the Eastern Cappadocians on the primacy of the Roman bishop. The governance of the church was there very early on, and thankfully so.

It's crazy when you read just how close we all were to believing in Arianism. There were plenty of other heresies rooted out with this system that the Bible alone could not. Not because the Bible is incorrect, but because of the very agenda driven interpretations that you point to here.

The Banned said:

---

Thanks for sharing that. I can easily see how a Protestant going to catholic mass with no prep could walk away feeling like "what the heck was that!?" And I hate that you weren't prepped to have to stay in your seat. That's tough, and I'm sorry. I'm assuming they just didn't even think to tell you? Either way, don't blame you for not walking away with the warm fuzzies

Seems like you've learned a little more about transubstantiation and what we're saying when we mean when someone shouldn't receive. I have, at times, been not been ready to receive. It's a present tense, not an eternal judgement. Right now, in this moment, the believer's heart is not in the right place for this specific sacrament. Not a condemnation to hell. And for baptized Catholics only we can do that introspection. The priest doesn't know our sins unless we told him, in which case we were probably in confession repenting of them. The priest doesn't know if we hold to the true teaching of the Eucharist. It's on us to not receive when we are in a fallen state.

But for Protestants, this is easy. If you don't believe it is the true body and blood of Jesus, you aren't ready. Even people wanting to convert aren't ready to receive. This is found early in the church (like 100-200 AD). The catechumen goes through a process, even back then. The idea of just showing up, professing and being fully ready is a new phenomena that is only possible in a setting which has desacrimentalized things like communion and baptism. It's not that we don't want to commune with you. It's that we want you to know what you're signing up for so that, as scriptures say, you don't eat and drink your own condemnation. There is a man in my parish that has struggled with homosexual feelings for decades. He's in in 70s. Sometimes he goes up to receive. Sometimes he doesn't. It's an incredibly honorable thing he's doing to make sure he's right with the Lord in spirit and not just word.

As for the rest of it, I get it. I felt that when I left the church. It all seems so dry. When I came back it was shown to me that the word I'm looking for is "solemn". Catholics should agree with the statement that church is to equip and edify saints, but it does not follow that is required in the solemn worship service. The focus of the mass is the sacrifice of Christ. If you get a good homily, that's a bonus. The only way to get both is to run mass well over an hour. We should do that, but we live in such a busy world that any commitment over an hour is seen as a nuisance to many people. They want to get to travel ball or watch the NFL. Priests should not succumb to this pressure, but it's the reality they face. Protestant pastors feel this pressure too, but they don't have the mass. That's a full 30 minutes that they have to their teaching "advantage". But is it the historical faith?

The petitions are in there (right after offertory). The teaching is in there (right after the gospel reading). It's just generally done poorly, which is a shame. But it is done well at some parishes. Despite that, it can still have that less than emotional feel precisely because we're focused on the very solemn event of Jesus' death. It's why we petition for mercy so many times during the mass.

---

Thanks for your take. I realize my ONE experience should probably not be spread across every Catholic Church out there, as I wouldn't want someone's ONE experience in a Protestant church to forever shape their view either. Though I did assume expecting commonality amongst Catholic Churches would be more fair than amongst Protestant ones.

I have to say, my application of communion within my church is the same as yours (though we obviously don't believe in transubstantiation). If one's heart is not ready to receive communion, they better not; and people do refrain sometimes, myself included. My pastor also stresses that it is for believer's only.

Not sure if this matters, as quality is what is important (though I believe quality is there) but my church is a 1.5 hour service, then 45 min Sunday school, then a meal. The people dedicate their Sundays to church. They also gather together weekly for additional prayer, every other week for theology studies, and monthly for singing. I share this to point out that they've tried to embrace the idea of Hebrews 10:24-25 and my pastor is the first to admit that Paul would sometimes preach for 5 hours at a time, everyday, and thus we are quite inadequate.

What you are referring to is ongoing, adult level catechesis. This varies from parish to parish, however, many adult Catholics continue their spiritual formation in fraternal services organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or in apostolic movements such as the German founded, Schoenstatt Movement USA. Then there are mendicant orders that have laity as professed members such as the Carmelites, Franciscans, and my favorite, Dominicans.

Again, there is ample opportunity for ongoing faith formation and service within the structure of the Church- just not all take the opportunity.

This may or may not make sense, but when I was much younger, I felt like I was not "getting" anything out of going to mass. I did enjoy the music and when we got to shake hands with each other, but the prayers were the same as last time and the standing, sitting, kneeling all seemed so weird. It wasn't until later on did I understand what Eucharist means- to give thanks. So I wasn't supposed to "get" anything, I was supposed to "give"- once I understood that it changed my view about praising God for all I had received. Communion was the "bread" from God to help me journey on and become more like Jesus.

About receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion. Preparing one's heart, full knowledge, and reverence are the keys. I don't think I could go into another faith's ritual worship service and feel fully ready to say "Amen" day 1- even if we share a lot in common.

I hope you next experience with the Catholic mass is more of a blessing than a judgement.

PabloSerna said:

---

This may or may not make sense, but when I was much younger, I felt like I was not "getting" anything out of going to mass. I did enjoy the music and when we got to shake hands with each other, but the prayers were the same as last time and the standing, sitting, kneeling all seemed so weird. It wasn't until later on did I understand what Eucharist means- to give thanks. So I wasn't supposed to "get" anything, I was supposed to "give"- once I understood that it changed my view about praising God for all I had received. Communion was the "bread" from God to help me journey on and become more like Jesus.

About receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion. Preparing one's heart, full knowledge, and reverence are the keys. I don't think I could go into another faith's ritual worship service and feel fully ready to say "Amen" day 1- even if we share a lot in common.

I hope you next experience with the Catholic mass is more of a blessing than a judgement.

---

I just don't see how mass is practiced in scripture? Where in scripture did they have ritualistic meetings? They came together to hear teaching, have fellowship, to take communion, and to pray. The Protestant church does this, we just aren't so highly ritualistic about it.

It's interesting you used the phrase "another faith". I didn't realize at the time that's what the Catholic faith was in comparison to mine.

PabloSerna said:

---

What you are referring to is ongoing, adult level catechesis. This varies from parish to parish, however, many adult Catholics continue their spiritual formation in fraternal services organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or in apostolic movements such as the German founded, Schoenstatt Movement USA. Then there are mendicant orders that have laity as professed members such as the Carmelites, Franciscans, and my favorite, Dominicans.

Again, there is ample opportunity for ongoing faith formation and service within the structure of the Church- just not all take the opportunity.

---

The reason I hold a special place in my heart for the Dominicans.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

---

Because you aren't measuring teachings against words on paper. You're measuring teachings against your INTERPRETATION of words on paper. We all have our interpretative lense, including me. That was the point of Jesus leaving a church and not a Bible. I firmly believe this is why Jesus never commanded a single disciple to write down His words. The authority to teach was left. Some of that teaching was written down. Some was not. We can get into the fact that sola scriptura isn't found in the Bible either, but that argument falls under the larger umbrella of "who gets to determine what the hard passages mean".

All I know is it isn't me. Even to pope doesn't presume to know it all. What we do have is a church that was left. A church full of brilliant, spirit filled men that worked through many of these issues long ago. They cannot contradict scripture, so in that sense, they are bound. But where scripture is not clear, either we figure it out for ourselves or we go to the primary sources.

---

I can concede the idea there were traditions passed down in the early church that were not all communicated via written word. That seems like a fun game of telephone to continue to pass down those traditions (and interpretations) over two millenia.

My point is that we now have written scripture. Why not just go with that and keep it simple? I agree we have numerous interpretations of the written scripture we now have (even different books to include in the Canon) but the differences in some areas seem to be quite stark, like Mariology for example (not wanting to get into that specific topic).

On another note, I would speculate that Jesus and his disciples had an understanding some would be writing down his works, as we have the 4 gospels today. God governs all things and what he decrees comes to pass. So the idea that his "works" were going to be written down were wholly within his perfect plan for salvation.

I think most of the New Testament transcripts were available, even if on a limited basis, before 100 AD, correct me if I am wrong.

AGC said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This may or may not make sense, but when I was much younger, I felt like I was not "getting" anything out of going to mass. I did enjoy the music and when we got to shake hands with each other, but the prayers were the same as last time and the standing, sitting, kneeling all seemed so weird. It wasn't until later on did I understand what Eucharist means- to give thanks. So I wasn't supposed to "get" anything, I was supposed to "give"- once I understood that it changed my view about praising God for all I had received. Communion was the "bread" from God to help me journey on and become more like Jesus.

About receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion. Preparing one's heart, full knowledge, and reverence are the keys. I don't think I could go into another faith's ritual worship service and feel fully ready to say "Amen" day 1- even if we share a lot in common.

I hope you next experience with the Catholic mass is more of a blessing than a judgement.

---

I just don't see how mass is practiced in scripture? Where in scripture did they have ritualistic meetings? They came together to hear teaching, have fellowship, to take communion, and to pray. The Protestant church does this, we just aren't so highly ritualistic about it.

It's interesting you used the phrase "another faith". I didn't realize at the time that's what the Catholic faith was in comparison to mine.

---

Another apostolic tradition here - these discussions often devolve into assumptions and presuppositions because it's the best place to start.

Is the Bible, is scripture, a 'how to' manual that details every step? Or are the epistles written to people who are already doing? This is our split.

We have letters from Pliny to Trajan where the Roman's captured Christians (two slave women if I recall correctly) to see what they were doing when they met. Turns out they said the Ten Commandments among other things. You could argue it's not biblical to do that when meeting (we say it almost every Sunday as anglicans), but the tougher question is, if they're doing that then why? And why wouldn't you? And why aren't the letters correcting this practice if it's wrong? Why isn't there enmity between churches if one's doing it and the other isn't?

There's no detail for how to kill animals for sacrifices in the OT. Yet the Israelites did it. Clearly there is practice handed down through tradition and scripture has no need to address it, because everyone culturally knows what's going on. As a Protestant you don't have the shared culture, and rather than ask what the apostolic traditions know that you don't, you assume you can open the Bible up and use it as an exhaustive systematic text which it simply isn't.

---

I hear what your saying, truly I do, but the reformers were
from the culture. It's not as if Protestantism developed out of nowhere over night by some random guy who wanted to start an entirely new faith. The Israelites got it wrong within in one generation, why couldn't the church have as well? Clearly important things were written down; the hand of God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments.

Jesus preached from the scriptures and did He not rebuke the Pharisees for holding fast to oral traditions?

So some women read the Ten Commandments and it was not corrected in scripture; then I guess it's ok to read the Ten Commandments. But, is it wrong if you don't? Maybe not every decision in regard to the running of corporate church is critical.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical? Are you deepening and growing your understanding from our teaching (which was ultimately from Jesus)? I think they'd look around and ask are you meeting together regularly? Are you loving one another? They'd see we take communion in reverence and hold baptism seriously. We follow church discipline and address our sins. What would they say about a Catholic Church? In other words, what would the most important aspects be to the apostles?

3. The reformation came about because things NEEDED to be reformed. This is a genuine question: do Roman Catholics disagree with that statement? Do they think nothing at all needed to be addressed by the reformers? Now I understand this video is addressing the 2nd-4th century fathers so wouldn't even the Roman Catholics say their church, at least at one point, would have been a place the early church fathers would have been uncomfortable at? Would they consider the idea of a great apostasy within the RCC at a point in history? And, as a follow up (which is posed in the video), would they be comfortable in your church today?

---

If your #1 is the case, then how do you square the councils that decided which books were inspired? The bible does say which books are to be included. The apostles were fallible men who presented an infallible gospel. Those beyond the apostles were passing on what they were taught and if what they passed on wasn't the inspired word, then how did it get written years later? These are the questions that as a former protestant I also had to come to terms with.

If Paul or Peter walked into a service, they'd likely acknowledge the scripture being taught, but the context of its meaning would likely be different in places. The tradition going back to the church fathers was teaching scripture AND the meaning Acts 8:30-31

AGC said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AGC said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This may or may not make sense, but when I was much younger, I felt like I was not "getting" anything out of going to mass. I did enjoy the music and when we got to shake hands with each other, but the prayers were the same as last time and the standing, sitting, kneeling all seemed so weird. It wasn't until later on did I understand what Eucharist means- to give thanks. So I wasn't supposed to "get" anything, I was supposed to "give"- once I understood that it changed my view about praising God for all I had received. Communion was the "bread" from God to help me journey on and become more like Jesus.

About receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion. Preparing one's heart, full knowledge, and reverence are the keys. I don't think I could go into another faith's ritual worship service and feel fully ready to say "Amen" day 1- even if we share a lot in common.

I hope you next experience with the Catholic mass is more of a blessing than a judgement.

---

I just don't see how mass is practiced in scripture? Where in scripture did they have ritualistic meetings? They came together to hear teaching, have fellowship, to take communion, and to pray. The Protestant church does this, we just aren't so highly ritualistic about it.

It's interesting you used the phrase "another faith". I didn't realize at the time that's what the Catholic faith was in comparison to mine.

---

Another apostolic tradition here - these discussions often devolve into assumptions and presuppositions because it's the best place to start.

Is the Bible, is scripture, a 'how to' manual that details every step? Or are the epistles written to people who are already doing? This is our split.

We have letters from Pliny to Trajan where the Roman's captured Christians (two slave women if I recall correctly) to see what they were doing when they met. Turns out they said the Ten Commandments among other things. You could argue it's not biblical to do that when meeting (we say it almost every Sunday as anglicans), but the tougher question is, if they're doing that then why? And why wouldn't you? And why aren't the letters correcting this practice if it's wrong? Why isn't there enmity between churches if one's doing it and the other isn't?

There's no detail for how to kill animals for sacrifices in the OT. Yet the Israelites did it. Clearly there is practice handed down through tradition and scripture has no need to address it, because everyone culturally knows what's going on. As a Protestant you don't have the shared culture, and rather than ask what the apostolic traditions know that you don't, you assume you can open the Bible up and use it as an exhaustive systematic text which it simply isn't.

---

I hear what your saying, truly I do, but the reformers were
from the culture. It's not as if Protestantism developed out of nowhere over night by some random guy who wanted to start an entirely new faith. The Israelites got it wrong within in one generation, why couldn't the church have as well? Clearly important things were written down; the hand of God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments.

Jesus preached from the scriptures and did He not rebuke the Pharisees for holding fast to oral traditions?

So some women read the Ten Commandments and it was not corrected in scripture; then I guess it's ok to read the Ten Commandments. But, is it wrong if you don't? Maybe not every decision in regard to the running of corporate church is critical.

---

The reformers were not Judeans, to whom Christ taught his message, or to whom the epistles were written. And yes, they did actually wipe everything away to start a new faith; Luther's followers went much much further than he intended or wanted. His theses were well within historical practice to be nailed to the door. The reaction was too harsh and both sides stand to blame for what followed.

---

Exactly. I would suggest that the monergism of Luther was very new and, as a result, became the basis for double predestination within his own lifetime. Much of the reformation got way afield very quickly.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The hard part about binding men to scripture prior to scripture being canonized is that it puts the cart before the horse. Scripture was tested against the faith of those doing the selecting of which books belonged and which didn't, obviously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

So, let's just for the sake of argument say yes, the cart was before the horse until we had a canon. Go out even further and say it was not available in many common languages until 500 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that we have it now. So why does that even matter at this point? We now have the ability to measure everything against holy scripture.

---

Because you aren't measuring teachings against words on paper. You're measuring teachings against your INTERPRETATION of words on paper. We all have our interpretative lense, including me. That was the point of Jesus leaving a church and not a Bible. I firmly believe this is why Jesus never commanded a single disciple to write down His words. The authority to teach was left. Some of that teaching was written down. Some was not. We can get into the fact that sola scriptura isn't found in the Bible either, but that argument falls under the larger umbrella of "who gets to determine what the hard passages mean".

All I know is it isn't me. Even to pope doesn't presume to know it all. What we do have is a church that was left. A church full of brilliant, spirit filled men that worked through many of these issues long ago. They cannot contradict scripture, so in that sense, they are bound. But where scripture is not clear, either we figure it out for ourselves or we go to the primary sources.

---

I can concede the idea there were traditions passed down in the early church that were not all communicated via written word. That seems like a fun game of telephone to continue to pass down those traditions (and interpretations) over two millenia.

My point is that we now have written scripture. Why not just go with that and keep it simple? I agree we have numerous interpretations of the written scripture we now have (even different books to include in the Canon) but the differences in some areas seem to be quite stark, like Mariology for example (not wanting to get into that specific topic).

On another note, I would speculate that Jesus and his disciples had an understanding some would be writing down his works, as we have the 4 gospels today. God governs all things and what he decrees comes to pass. So the idea that his "works" were going to be written down were wholly within his perfect plan for salvation.

I think most of the New Testament transcripts were available, even if on a limited basis, before 100 AD, correct me if I am wrong.

---

It's fair to speculate that Jesus and His disciples might have a plan to write it all down, but it's odd that the gospel writers don't claim this, nor does evidence make it seem likely. Only 2 of 11 decides to undertake that task? And even then, they decided to wait between 2-5 decades to do it? It's not impossible, but if it doesn't hold up to a sola scriptura view, not sure that you can espouse it with much confidence.

None of the NT books were meant to be an expository summary of the faith. It's easy to say that we should keep it simple 2000 years later, but that's only necessary because of how much confusion has arisen over the last 500 years. It happened at the beginning of the church too. All of the denounced heresies used the Bible to state their position as true. Only the church could step in to denounce the views as heretical. The sola scriptura argument was doomed to fail 1700 years ago, and here we are dealing with it again.

I sympathize with things like Marian dogmas, but they only came into being due to outright challenges by its deniers. This wasn't an issue of Catholic teaching foisting a new idea on people. It was a pious practice that was attacked and condemned by a certain segment of Christians that then required an answer. The church was forced to answer in order to shepherd the lay people on whether or not it is true. To say that the Bible doesn't claim it is open to the rebuttal that the Bible doesn't claim everything we practice must be in the Bible. So 2000 years later we're trying to figure out what to do with the division. Hence the OP. Does it make more sense to use the interpretive lense of the last 200-500 years or the first 200-500 years?