Protestant Doctrine

[icedtea]

I would've known Catholic practices are not aligned with the Bible when I was a young Catholic, but never read the Bible whilest catholic.

Now i know better.

 

[tall73]

edit.

 

[lionroar0]

I would've known Catholic practices are not aligned with the Bible when I was a young Catholic, but never read the Bible whilest catholic.

Now i know better.

So are you stating that you just read the Bible all by your self with out any other resource and came to this conclusion all by yourself?

Peace

 

[icedtea]

Things didn't add up.
Read the list the poster posted.
Too many 'practices" disagree with the Bible.
The Bible is for all edification.
We are smart enough to figure it out on our own. The more you read, the more you understand. Daniel 12:10!

 

[lionroar0]

Things didn't add up.
Read the list the poster posted.
Too many 'practices" disagree with the Bible.
The Bible is for all edification.
We are smart enough to figure it out on our own. The more you read, the more you understand. Daniel 12:10!

So you figured this out all on your own??? Just by reading the Bible?? It was just you and the Bible and nothing else????


Peace

 

[cathmomof3]

Quoting from scripturecatholic hasn't impressed me at all. I looked up a lot of the verses in regards to a topic that they were suppose to support - and in context, they didn't support it. Didn't relate to the here in now as in being in the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant, didn't promote the view as spun at all.

Wasn't trying to impress you. Just defending my Faith while addressing the point and providing scriptural support for it. It is from the new testament, so why would it not support the here and now. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion and interpretation of the scriptures listed.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Wasn't trying to impress you. Just defending my Faith while addressing the point and providing scriptural support for it. It is from the new testament, so why would it not support the here and now. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion and interpretation of the scriptures listed.

I know you weren't trying to impress me. I am simply stating that I am not impressed bya list scripture that supposedly supports a dogma that when one examines it in context, doesn't support that dogma at all.

And Joel, Baruch and Tobit are not NT, BTW .

 

[cathmomof3]

I know you weren't trying to impress me. I am simply stating that I am not impressed bya list scripture that supposedly supports a dogma that when one examines it in context, doesn't support that dogma at all.

And Joel, Baruch and Tobit are not NT, BTW .

In your opinion it does not support your interpretation. In my opinion it does support the Catholic Church's interpretation.

 

[a_ntv]

We think for ourselves, and don't need someone to tell us what the Bible means.

Yes, that is the protestant doctrine as we think it is: the self and only the self.

But Jesus said (Matt 16:24) : "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"

But, in short, to address the issue, SOME Protestants embrace private interpretation just as Catholics do

You are enough smart to understand the difference between the private interpretation made by oneself (=each guy by himself), from the interpretation made by a Tradition of 2000 years, as catholics embrace

Those who hold to a 'public interpretation' stress conversation, discussion even debate, which in time, may lead to consensus (which is the goal).

Who decides the partecipants to the debate? Debate only between protestants? also the dirty catholics are admitted? or even the JWs?
Jesus never used the 'consensus' as hermeneutic principle: (John 15:19) If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Using the 'consensus' method you reach only a diluted doctrine, full only of platitudes. (Ap 3:16) So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
Using the consensus method, Protestants risk to became like the Unitarian Church: 100% of consunsus and 100% of easiness

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of MY thougths...

But, in short, to address the issue, SOME Protestants embrace private interpretation just as Catholics do

You are enough smart to understand the difference between the private interpretation made by oneself (=each guy by himself), from the interpretation made by a Tradition of 2000 years, as catholics embrace

In the epistemological principle of norming of Sola Ecclesia, the Teacher evaluates himself according to the norm of his own teachings.


The (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination is a teacher.
It teaches and claims many things - some unique to Catholicism.
It makes some claims for itself - some very remarkable.
They should be normed, evaluated, arbitrated.
Under Sola Ecclesia, the RCC says that the RCC is the "sole final arbiter" for the teachings/"Tradition"/claims of the RCC (specificly, the Magisterium of the RCC, all clergy who have vowed on death to uphold the teachings/Tradition/claims of the RCC). And what is used as the norma normans for this self-evaluation of the teachings, Tradition and claims of the RCC? The teachings, Tradition and claims of the RCC. And what doe the RCC self-claim about the result of this epistemology of self evaluating the teachings of self according to the norm of the self-same teachings of self? It is infallible, and therefore, unaccountable.


No teacher, known to me, embraces PRIVATE interpretation more boldly and more extremely than does the RCC. Even the LDS does not claim that the Magisterium is infallible as does the RCC.


MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[a_ntv]

...Under Sola Ecclesia, the RCC says that the RCC is the "sole final arbiter" for the teachings/"Tradition"/claims of the RCC (specificly, the Magisterium of the RCC, all clergy who have vowed on death to uphold the teachings/Tradition/claims of the RCC). .

I tryed to explain you that CC (please dont call us RCC, it is not our name) do not embrace Sola Ecclesia.
The contrary of Sola Scriptura is not Sola Ecclesia.

And here we were speaking of interpreation, not of normative.

But probaly on the interpretation of the scriptures the ideas of protestants are very vague and different

Any time I ask you "who shall interpeter the scripture ?", you answer me: "you are wrong bc you embrace the Sola Ecclesia principle".

The more I stay on CF, the more I see that protestantism need the catholic doctrine to identify itself as the contrary of catholicism

Let's speak about your idea of consensus...perhaps it is very vague, but at least it is suggestion

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I tryed to explain you that CC do not embrace Sola Ecclesia. The contrary of Sola Scriptura is not Sola Ecclesia

In the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church, who determines if what she is teaching is correct?

And this determination is made according to the norma normans of what?



You may label the epistemological principle WHATEVER you like - the title does not change what it is.


.

 

[icedtea]

Yes, that is the protestant doctrine as we think it is: the self and only the self.

But Jesus said (Matt 16:24) : "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"

Did I miss the scripture which says "And follow some guy and do what he says"?

 

[Asinner]

Did I miss the scripture which says "And follow some guy and do what he says"?

Like the apostles?

Matt 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

God Bless

 

[mesue]

... (please dont call us RCC, it is not our name) ...

You do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, or RCC?

 

[cathmomof3]

You do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, or RCC?

We belong to the CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[Nazaroo]

We belong to the CATHOLIC CHURCH

This statement really intrigues me:

You (by your header) are actually (Greek?) Orthodox.
Yet in English you apparently prefer to call yourself 'Catholic'. Does this same attitude hold up when you are speaking in Greek? I am completely puzzled.

From the protestant point of view at least, there are Roman Catholics (who recognize the primacy and authority of the Roman Pope), there are Greek Orthodox, who are apparently almost the same in doctrine barring this recognition of the authority of the Roman church over all the others, and there are also Russian Orthodox, who (I think, but can't get a straight answer about) apparently identify themselves with the Greek Orthodox church.

Then there are many other protestant denominations and churchs and cults.

Protestants didn't invent these terms or names, and they are certainly useful and needed to distinguish groups that WANT to be distinguished in terms of doctrine and hierarchical authority.

Why do some now want to blur these categories? Are they being deconstructed by ecumenicalism? Have some deals already been secretly made behind the scenes? Can anyone speak with real authority for any one of these groups and answer the question, or at least present their own position?

Surely everyone has a right to have the issue clarified at least.

The more I stay on CF, the more I see that protestantism need the catholic doctrine to identify itself as the contrary of catholicism

This idea also intrigues me. Just as Christians generally accuse Satanists of defining their religion in (anti-)'Christian' terms, and would seem to be without a reason to exist without them, now here Catholics are claiming that Protestants are also 'negative' cookie-cuttings of Catholicism.

But this seems to be exaggerated. Can you give some solid examples, beyond the way protestants in this thread have been bantering?

Let's speak about your idea of consensus...perhaps it is very vague, but at least it is suggestion

Does 'Consensus' always have to end in gray 'lukewarmness'? Can't a partial consensus extend solid ground, while avoiding the embracing of flakey extremes by all groups?

 

[Trento]

In the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church, who determines if what she is teaching is correct?

And this determination is made according to the norma normans of what?



You may label the epistemological principle WHATEVER you like - the title does not change what it is.


.

By "Sola Ecclesia" I believe you are trying to say that you thinks I get my information only from the Catholic Church. In response, let me say this. The Catholic Church believes Scripture, Tradition and the Church are equally coexisting authorities (whereas Protestants believe Scripture alone is inerrant, thus "sola scriptura"). From that premise alone, "sola ecclesia" is inappropriate.

 

[Lynn73]

I tryed to explain you that CC (please dont call us RCC, it is not our name)

Are you separate from the Roman pontiff and his and that church's authority? If not, what's the big deal about saying you're Roman Catholic? If you're in submission to the Roman Pope and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church and it's teachings, then you're part of the Roman Catholic church aren't you?

 

[Lynn73]

Yes, that is the protestant doctrine as we think it is: the self and only the self.

But Jesus said (Matt 16:24) : "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"

I'd say it's myself and the Holy Spirit and other mature Christians I can go to if need be for help in understanding. One thing is certain to me. The gospel of salvtion is clear and simple and I don't need a man on a throne in Rome to tell me what it is.

You are enough smart to understand the difference between the private interpretation made by oneself (=each guy by himself), from the interpretation made by a Tradition of 2000 years, as catholics embrace

Are you smart enough to understand that the Scripture you keep putting forth about private interpretation doesn't really say what you think it does? It says no PROPHECY of Scripture is of any private interpretation. That's a little different from saying no Scripture is of private interpretation. It also says that holy men of OLD spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This is more a defense of the prophets and how Scripture came to be (through men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit) than it is telling us we can't read the Bible for ourselves and have understanding.