A few questions for Protestants

[Albion]

Its when a Pope speaks to dogma and doctrines he is seen by Catholics as being infallible, correct?

Not unless he invokes a certain rule about the announcement being infallible.

That has happened only twice since this policy was adopted by a church council in 1870.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Not unless he invokes a certain rule about the announcement being infallible.

That has happened only twice since this policy was adopted by a church council in 1870.

Were those the assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception?

 

[Albion]

Right. Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

 

[concretecamper]

And have to explain why many dogmas do not line up with the scriptures

such as?

 

[Fidelibus]

Well like anything else we put a lot more stock into the views of someone who studied the scripture for a lifetime, who understands the original language over someone who is merely a reader.

Like anything else? What do you mean? What is this "anything else?" Not to mention the "We"? Who is this "we' you speak of that you put so much stock into? Is it people in the church you are a member of? (By the way, what church might that be?) Or are you talking about the many thousands of Protestant/ non-denominational churches and sects as a whole?

Not only that, by what you are saying here, contradicts what you said on your post #472 where you said:

No one interprets scripture perfectly.

So, what is it renniks, are you saying that these people who studied the scripture for a lifetime, and understands the original language have more authority over us "mere readers" of the bible? You must admit, this creates quite the conundrum for you. Do you not remember, by your own self-admitted belief in the Protestant theology system, that no one's interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative than anyone else's interpretation of Scripture? Not only that, are you willing to put your eternal salvation on these people whom you claim to have who studied the scripture for a lifetime, and understands the original language and have more authority over us "mere readers" of the bible? I have to say renniks, I find this quite compelling.

And being Joel or Joyce certainly doesn't make them more authoritive just because they are popular.

Really? I would be willing to bet if you were to ask them, they would put themselves in the category of "having studied the scripture for a lifetime and understands the original language more than us mere readers of the bible.

Your " infallible" popes have all kinds of different interpretations so how in the world can you trust their authority?

Did you not catch the second paragraph renniks, of my post # 575, where I (as the originator of this thread.) reminded you, and other non-Catholics that this thread "is not" a thread of comparing the Catholic Church's beliefs and teachings with that of the numerous different beliefs/teachings of the Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects? It is a thread for non-Protestants (not just Catholics, could be Muslims, Mormons, Buddhist, etc.) to ask Protestants, ( non-denominationals) Christians questions, and a chance for them to back up their beliefs with biblical, historical, and or traditional writings or documentations.

One other thing that must be noted though, for a Catholics, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, or non-Protestants etc. to correct a fallacy they feel was posted of their beliefs, is a far cry of comparing it to any of the numerous Protestant/non-denominational beliefs or practices.

-So renniks, for me personally, if you were to start another thread renninks like, (there are already many) "A few questions for Catholics", I would very well consider participating in such a thread and address your above quote if it were to come up.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Apparently not because no one is without flaws in understanding.

Apparently? Apparently, no one is "without flaws"? Even those whom you put stock in that have studied the scripture for a lifetime, and understands the original language over those who are merely readers of the bible? This is a perfect example renniks why the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura is flawed, and un-biblical!

To claim your church got it right you have to account for all the contradictions from different popes.

Lol! I'm guessing you didn't take my advice and get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church! Start that thread I spoke of, and I am pretty sure the other Catholics along as myself on this Christian Forum will be more than happy to correct your false understandings and myths of Catholicism!

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[renniks]

who studied the scripture for a lifetime, and understands the original language have more authority over us "mere readers" of the bible? You must admit, this creates quite the conundrum for you. Do you not remember, by your own self-admitted belief in the Protestant theology system, that no one's interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative than anyone else's interpretation of Scripture?

Perfection is the enemy of functionality. I said no one has a perfect interpretation not that some aren't better than others.

 

[renniks]

Lol! I'm guessing you didn't take my advice and get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church! Start that thread I spoke of, and I am pretty sure the other Catholics along as myself on this Christian Forum will be more than happy to correct your false understandings and myths of Catholicism!

I'm quite aware you have a catechism, but that doesn't change what I said.

 

[renniks]

Really? I would be willing to bet if you were to ask them, they would put themselves in the category of "having studied the scripture for a lifetime and understands the original language more than us mere readers of the bible.

I doubt it.

 

[Fidelibus]

Were those the assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception?

You are aware that one of the fathers of your reformation, Martin Luther, defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to his death, right?

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..." ---- (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.)

As for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, although he (Martin Luther) did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.--- (Cole, William J. Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124. citing WA 10, III, 268.)

And we must not forget Martin Luther's, John Calvin's belief of Mary the Mother of God.

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." --(Luther, Martin, Luther's Works, volume 24, (LW 24) 107.)

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." ---(John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.)

And their belief in Mary's Perpetual Virginity:

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."---(Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.)

""The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."---(John Calvin, (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."---( Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.)

So, I would like to ask a few questions. When did these beliefs of Mary cease to exist in Protestantism? (Dates? even approximate dates) What church or churches throughout Protestantism decided these fathers of the reformation got it wrong about Mary? Who was it from the various Protestant churches that made these decisions? Finally, how did they get the authority to determine the reformation fathers got it all wrong when it comes to Mary?

Any official Protestant historic or present day, dates, writings, decisions, or documentations would be of great interest to read.

Thank You and have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

And...

And? Well, okay, if you insist.

That is early Christian Church history, something Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects were not a part of. If you consider yourself a Protestant, that will include the church or sect you are a member of. (Once again, what is the name of the church you attend?)

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

I'm quite aware you have a catechism, but that doesn't change what I said.

Does this mean you're not going to start the thread I mentioned?

 

[Fidelibus]

I doubt it.

Do you also doubt their private jets, multi million dollar mansions, and million if not billions dollar bank accounts?

 

[Albion]

Do you also doubt their private jets, multi million dollar mansions, and million if not billions dollar bank accounts?

We're not talking about the Vatican here.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

We're not talking about the Vatican here.

Or the Bishop of Bling in Germany removed by Pope Francis.

 

[renniks]

And? Well, okay, if you insist.

That is early Christian Church history, something Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects were not a part of. If you consider yourself a Protestant, that will include the church or sect you are a member of. (Once again, what is the name of the church you attend?)

Have a Blessed Day!

https://www.facebook.com/COGHQ

 

[renniks]

Do you also doubt their private jets, multi million dollar mansions, and million if not billions dollar bank accounts?

I'm not a follower but their wealth is irrelevant.

 

[renniks]

Does this mean you're not going to start the thread I mentioned?

Yep. I'm not going to start a thread.

 

[SamInNi]

You are aware that one of the fathers of your reformation, Martin Luther, defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to his death, right?

Really? I know I'm only scratching the surface here just now, but isn't it true that Luther didn't leave Roman Catholicism abruptly? Shouldn't we expect his published writings and sermons to reflect how his understanding of biblical teaching developed over time? So, is it fair to suggest he believed in the Immaculate Conception "to his death"?

But anyway, I'd like to think that most informed Protestants wouldn't be looking to Luther at any stage in his theological development as a flawless authority on biblical doctrine. I certainly wouldn't be influenced by anyone's opinion that brings into question the clear, God-breathed teaching of Scripture, regardless of historic affiliations and standing.

I know that ultimately Scripture's supreme authority underpinned Luther's brave stand against Roman Catholic Tradition. His conscience was rooted in the Word of God and wouldn't let him accept "the authority of popes and councils." In this he rightly believed that the written Word declares the fullness of the Christian faith and glorifies Christ.

 

[Buzzard3]

No one interprets scripture perfectly.

That means Jesus got it wrong when he said, "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).