Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, he is, relying on historical evidence as we all do. I can look into it more but the point is that such punishments were widespread in that time, not limited to the west.

I can’t find anything supporting it.

 

[fhansen]

...and of course that's also true for Tradition and Conciliar authority. Perhaps even moreso than for Sola Scriptura.

Sure. They both assert that it's Tradition they follow, but each of these churches look at the same Christian history and then come up with quite different doctrines based upon that alleged Tradition that they both say is what defines doctrine.

Only if one refuses to look objectively for some reason. Concerning what God desires of man, that basic theology is locked into the sacraments, for one thing. Man is born again at Baptism as the first formal, public profession of faith, and then enters communion with God signified by the Sacrament of Communion/the Eucharist where he regularly partakes of God unless and until that union is compromised by serious and grave sin which opposes and destroys justice/love in man. This should enjoin him to examine himself to see if he can partake worthily, and, if not, the Sacrament of Confession/reconciliation acknowledges that man can always have a change of heart and repent, turning back to God who forgives and communion is restored: spiritually and then affirmed with the physical partaking again of the Body and Blood.

The simple, the illiterate, along with the scholarly and high and mighty have been able to understand and live out their faith and relationship with God in these most basic ways for centuries. Meanwhile Protestants often contest and disagree with the RCC and with each other, even, over the theology behind these long-held beliefs and practices which are supported by the ECFs as well. This theology involves one’s position on baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the nature of justification, the possibility of losing one’s state of justice/salvation, and the role of man’s will, among other things, all agreed upon between the eastern and western ancient churches but not necessarily so among Protestants.

 

[Albion]

Only if one refuses to look objectively for some reason. Concerning what God desires of man, that basic theology is locked into the sacraments, for one thing. Man is born again at Baptism as the first formal, public profession of faith, and then enters communion with God signified by the Sacrament of Communion/the Eucharist where he regularly partakes of God unless and until that union is compromised by serious and grave sin which opposes and destroys justice/love in man.

Please do get back to me if you decide to address my post.

You know--"Holy Tradition" is not more definitive or precise than Sola Scriptura is, and that's the situation with all the churches in either camp.

 

[fhansen]

Please do get back to me if you decide to address my post.

You know--"Holy Tradition" is not more definitive or precise than Sola Scriptura is, and that's the situation with all the churches in either camp.

And you should know better. The consistency on the most basic concepts of the faith between the east and west on the matters we all come to Christ for to begin with far outweigh any perceived differences, and they've survived intact despite centuries of isolation and conflict between the two sides. Not to mention consistencies on less central matters such as liturigies, priesthood, etc, consistencies all driven and dependent upon Tradition.

 

[Albion]

And you should know better. The consistency on the most basic concepts of the faith between the east and west on the matters we all come to Christ for to begin with far outweigh any perceived differences, and they've survived intact despite centuries of isolation and conflict between the two sides.

Blah blah blah. The fact is that both EO and RC claim that Holy Tradition provides them with the right answers. And they claim that Sola Scriptura means disunity and division.

But the truth of the matter is that "Holy Tradition" is no more accurate than Sola Scriptura, as we can see by the fact that both EO and RC (and some others) say they refer to the same Tradition BUT COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF DOCTRINES.

 

[fhansen]

No I disagree with this as well. Purgatory and indulgences were not doctrines of the church at the time of the excommunication which were huge factors in the reformation movement and are not identical at all since the eastern churches rejected both of these doctrines and the councils that formulated them labeling them as heretical. Papal infallibility was obviously not a doctrine endorsed by the east since it was the determining factor for Rome’s excommunication. Priest celibacy is not enforced or mandatory for priesthood although it is somewhat encouraged in the east.

Celibacy is mandatory for biships in the EO; obviously there's a common root there- and for Catholcism this is considered to be a practice, and therefore subject to possible change, having nothing to do with essentials: teachings on faith or morals.

The east recognized the primacy of Rome from the beginning-whereas how that related to authority was/is obviously another issue.

Prayers for the dead predate Christianity in Judaism. And while that doesn’t necessarily cinch anything from the Christian POV the practice was continued, as attested to by early fathers in the east and west and in writings on catacomb walls in the earliest centuries. It’s an ancient Christian belief that went unprotested and uncontroversial at the time as far as anything we know on the matter goes. The concept of the need for a state of purification before entrance into heaven aligns with Scripture which teaches that sinners do not enter heaven. Origen put it this way:

“If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter.”

Some Protestant churches held to some form of the doctrine while some eastern churches today have variations on the theme. The EO, for example, teach prayers for the dead as well as a state of purification between death and heaven. A rose is a rose.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Celibacy is mandatory for biships in the EO; obviously there's a common root there- and for Catholcism this is considered to be a practice, and therefore subject to possible change, having nothing to do with essentials: teachings on faith or morals.

The east recognized the primacy of Rome from the beginning-whereas how that related to authority was/is obviously another issue.

Prayers for the dead predate Christianity in Judaism. And while that doesn’t necessarily cinch anything from the Christian POV the practice was continued, as attested to by early fathers in the east and west and in writings on catacomb walls in the earliest centuries. It’s an ancient Christian belief that went unprotested and uncontroversial at the time as far as anything we know on the matter goes. The concept of the need for a state of purification before entrance into heaven aligns with Scripture which teaches that sinners do not enter heaven. Origen put it this way:

“If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter.”

Some Protestant churches held to some form of the doctrine while some eastern churches today have variations on the theme. The EO, for example, teach prayers for the dead as well as a state of purification between death and heaven. A rose is a rose.

Out of curiosity, which do you think will happen first for the RCC - routine marriage for priests or female priests?

 

[fhansen]

Out of curiosity, which do you think will happen first for the RCC - routine marriage for priests or female priests?

I doubt female priests will be in the cards. Some married priests, converted from other churches, are already Catholic priests now but I don't know about marriage becoming routine. Could be someday.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Celibacy is mandatory for biships in the EO; obviously there's a common root there- and for Catholcism this is considered to be a practice, and therefore subject to possible change, having nothing to do with essentials: teachings on faith or morals.

You have this backwards my friend. It’s the RCC that considers priest celibacy to be mandatory while the EOC encourages it but doesn’t deem it as being mandatory for priesthood. This was one of the small disputes that contributed to the Schism of 1054AD.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Prayers for the dead predate Christianity in Judaism. And while that doesn’t necessarily cinch anything from the Christian POV the practice was continued, as attested to by early fathers in the east and west and in writings on catacomb walls in the earliest centuries. It’s an ancient Christian belief that went unprotested and uncontroversial at the time as far as anything we know on the matter goes. The concept of the need for a state of purification before entrance into heaven aligns with Scripture which teaches that sinners do not enter heaven. Origen put it this way:

Prayers for the dead are a long ways from the doctrine of purgatory that wasn’t formulated until 1439AD at the council of Florence which was rejected and condemned by the eastern church as heretical.

 

[fhansen]

You have this backwards my friend. It’s the RCC that considers priest celibacy to be mandatory while the EOC encourages it but doesn’t deem it as being mandatory for priesthood. This was one of the small disputes that contributed to the Schism of 1054AD.

Actually, some eastern churches have the same practice on this matter as the RCC while, as I said, celibacy is mandated for EO bishops in my understanding. Either way, celibacy is still considered to be a practice within Catholcism and as such could conceivably be done way with, no longer mandated IOW.

 

[fhansen]

Prayers for the dead are a long ways from the doctrine of purgatory that wasn’t formulated until 1439AD at the council of Florence which was rejected and condemned by the eastern church as heretical.

Doesn't really matter when it was offically set in stone-the concept was believed and acted upon from the beginning. And prayers for the dead have everything to do with it as they involve a belief that the deceased benefits from those prayers and the grace received for admittance into God's presence-unnecessary if all believers enter that presence immediately at death. This has do so with the Christian concept that our salvation has corporate element-God can use others in His plan for us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Origen put it this way:

“If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter.”

Origen had 15 anathemas so I wouldn’t put too much confidence in what he wrote.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually, some eastern churches have the same practice on this matter as the RCC while, as I said, celibacy is mandated for EO bishops in my understanding. Either way, celibacy is still considered to be a practice within Catholcism and as such could conceivably be done way with, no longer mandated IOW.

We’ll we know that Peter was married at some point in his life since Jesus healed his mother in law. Perhaps he was a widower.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Doesn't really matter when it was offically set in stone-the concept was believed and acted upon from the beginning. And prayers for the dead have everything to do with it as they involve a belief that the deceased benefits from those prayers and the grace received for admittance into God's presence-unnecessary if all believers enter that presence immediately at death. This has do so with the Christian concept that our salvation has corporate element-God can use others in His plan for us.

Not necessarily since prayers after a person death can be taken into consideration at the time of their death because of God’s omniscience and omnipresence.

 

[Albion]

Doesn't really matter when it was offically set in stone-the concept was believed and acted upon from the beginning.

And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't.

I know that your church makes that claim, but it's not accurate. It could be argued that a very few of the characteristics that make Purgatory be Purgatory had some "play" among the OT Jews (as though what they believed necessarily defines any doctrine for Christians!) and of course the word "fire" shows up here or there, but as for Purgatory? Absolutely not.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Doesn't really matter when it was offically set in stone-the concept was believed and acted upon from the beginning. And prayers for the dead have everything to do with it as they involve a belief that the deceased benefits from those prayers and the grace received for admittance into God's presence-unnecessary if all believers enter that presence immediately at death. This has do so with the Christian concept that our salvation has corporate element-God can use others in His plan for us.

I hope my disagreement on these aren’t received in an ill manner brother. I do enjoy reading your posts and I have a respect for your theology my friend. Christ’s love be with you always brother.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't.

I know that your church makes that claim, but it's not accurate. It could be argued that a very few of the characteristics that make Purgatory be Purgatory had some "play" among the OT Jews (as though what they believed necessarily defines any doctrine for Christians!) and of course the word "fire" shows up here or there, but as for Purgatory? Absolutely not.

Lol I’ve often said if someone struck a match in the scriptures the RCC would claim it’s a reference to purgatory. No offense RCC brethren.

 

[fhansen]

We’ll we know that Peter was married at some point in his life since Jesus healed his mother in law. Perhaps he was a widower.

And?

 

[fhansen]

Origen had 15 anathemas so I wouldn’t put too much confidence in what he wrote.

In that case you apparently trust the authority of the Church that anethmatized him or his teachings. But that same church accepted much of what he believed and taught, years after his death especailly. For its part the RCC doesn't even accept everything Augustine or Aquinas taught.