Protestant Doctrine

[icedtea]

It says no PROPHECY of Scripture is of any private interpretation. That's a little different from saying no Scripture is of private interpretation.

Bingo!

 

[a_ntv]

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?

It is a question of kindness by you.

We kindly ask you to call us with the name that we use for us: Catholic Church.
(probably you dont know that, but it is)

RCC is a protestant nickname made to bush the catholics faith, that is NOT only the papacy.
And it is also incorrect regading the rites, bc in the CC there are many different rites, not only the roman one.

 

[a_ntv]

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.

Protestants are usually quite ignorant on that.

There are:

Anglican Churches (you know them)

CC: Catholic Church (the name we use for our self is Catholic Church, not RCC, that is a bushing nickname from protestant and really uncorrect)
- there are other churches separated from Rome: SSPX, Polish Nationa Catholic Church, Old Catholic Churches and so on

EO: Orthodox Churches, in inter-communion, that cames from the Bizantine Tradition:ad instance Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
Russian Orthodox Church, Church of Georgia, Church of Serbia, Church of Romania, Church of Bulgaria, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece
Church of Albania, Orthodox Church in America, Antiochean Orthodox Church
- there are other churches separated from these: Old Calendarist Churches, Old Believers in Russia and so on

OO: Oriental Orthodox Churches, in inter-communion: Coptic Orhodox Church, Syrian Orthodox Church, Armenian Church, Ethipiean Church, and so on

The Assyrian Church of the East, and his brothers churches

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Could everyone get over the name issues?

Yes, we all know that the terms "Lutheran" "Methodist" "Mormon" and many others were names use in derision, to ridicule - but they've come into general use and eventually largely embraced by the groups themselves.

Look in book about denominations - and the term ROMAN Catholic Church will be used. Roman Catholics often use the term themeselves.

Protestants get it either way. If we say "Catholic" we are quickly rebuked and reminded that there are in fact MANY Catholic denominations, rites, groups, etc. And of course, Protestants are just as "catholic" as Catholics are - thus making for an inadequate term. After years of being rebuked no matter what I posted, I've finally settled on (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic - with exactly that expression, it seems to make Roman Catholics the least angry and yet we know what denomination we're talking about. I'm glad Protestants aren't so touchy. You can call me a Lutheran if you like, no offense will be taken.


Just for the record:
"Catholic" = whole, universal, all-embracing, all-inclusive.
It means ALL Christians, not just those who accept the unique doctrines and governance of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination.


Can we move on?????



- Josiah

 

[JJB]

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.

Attempts to look bigger? Attempts to confuse the conversation by blurring the lines? Try to identify the polar bear in a snowstorm? No one has answered your questions yet, and they are good questions.





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?

Waiting on a response to question and comments also.



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?

a_ntv, would you like to answer the questions? You brought the issue of words to the fore, do you have a response? Or perhaps you could start another thread, and then this thread can move forward as Josiah requested.

A new thread could clarify things for those of us who are often being told we're ignorant of so much of the mystery contained within the RCC/EO/Anglican/etc, traditions.

 

[tall73]

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.

Except that tradition is even more diverse than the Scriptures, and by the admission even of those who study it contains opinions which vary. So you have to take the consensus of it. Which means someone is still determining what the consensus is of all these elements.

Therefore, you do wind up in the end with sola ecclesia. Not in the sense that the church can do anything without tradition, etc. But in the sense that someone necessarily MUST determine how it all fits together.

However, in reality what we all do is private interpretation. We choose the ecclesial body that best fits our take on the evidence, then submit to it.

 

[Lynn73]

It is a question of kindness by you.

We kindly ask you to call us with the name that we use for us: Catholic Church.
(probably you dont know that, but it is)

RCC is a protestant nickname made to bush the catholics faith, that is NOT only the papacy.
And it is also incorrect regading the rites, bc in the CC there are many different rites, not only the roman one.

It's fine if you'd rather be called CC (though I may out of habit continue to say RCC out of no offense toward you), but you didn't answer my question and I'm really curious. Are you or are you not in submission to the Roman Pope and the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church?

 

[A. believer]

Can we move on?????

Don't hold your breath.

 

[a_ntv]

Could everyone get over the name issues?

Yes, we all know that the terms "Lutheran" "Methodist" "Mormon" and many others were names use in derision, to ridicule - but they've come into general use and eventually largely embraced by the groups themselves.

Look in book about denominations - and the term ROMAN Catholic Church will be used. Roman Catholics often use the term themeselves.

Our name is Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church

See ad instance the Cathechism, "Cathechism of the Catholic Church". Not of RCC!
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Sometime we call ourself Roman in order to the roman liturgy or to the roman jurisdiction (anyway not for the papal infallibility), two different meanings that anyway do not cover all our Catholic Church but only parts of CC.
So RCC is anyway wrong.

The base of ecumenism is the respect for the others
But now you know it, and Im sure that you will use CC instead of RCC.

Anyway catholic (with 'c', not 'C') is rigthly used by many churches with the meaning of universal
Also orthodox (with 'o', not 'O') is rigthly used by many churches (including the CC) with the meaning of correct.

We are not touchy, but the term RCC is often used by protestant with wrong meaning in it. Ad instance the nice Lynn73 thinks that RCC means to be in submission to the Roman Pope and the magisterium :

Are you or are you not in submission to the Roman Pope and the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church?

No one in the CC is in submission to someone other that Christ!
We firmly look at the CC teachings (me too). That is very different.
And anyway 'roman' do not means that.

 

[a_ntv]

A new thread could clarify things for those of us who are often being told we're ignorant of so much of the mystery contained within the RCC/EO/Anglican/etc, traditions.

No, my comment to post 357 of Nazaroo was that he stated that from the protestant point of view the Orthodox chuch is only one, while there are differences (and not communion) between the EO churches, the OO churches, and the ACE chuches, and their schismatic churches.
If you are very aware of these interesting differences in practices and liturgies, you are ok

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?

Your exemple is exagerated and out from my point of view.
I was thinking from a sociologic point of view, osserving that to get a strong identity sometime the little gruops, with a short tradition, need to define themself as the contrary of others, while big groups, with a long tradition, dont need that.
Exemples? read the OP post (and it is easy to check what the Belgic confession of 1619 thought to be the false church)....

 

[A. believer]

No one in the CC is in submission to someone other that Christ!

According to your Canon Law, it looks like you're a schismatic.

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
​

Ouch!

​

 

[a_ntv]

According to your Canon Law, it looks like you're a schismatic.

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

​

Ouch!

​

What do you mean for submission?

Read it in the context !!
Canon Law is the internal organization of the Church, and is oriented about the jurisdiction (=who is my bishop and who shall appoint my bishop).
It is not a document on the faith at all.
And it doesnt cover all the CC, but only a part of it.

Submission here have only the meaning of 'under the jurisdiction'. In fact it simply states that your bishop shall be appointed by the pope. If you choose a valid ordained bishop not appointed by the pope you are schismatic. Schism is on the jurisdiction level only.

Ad instance protestants are not said to be schismatic. Only Orthodoxes and few other churches are considered schismatic, that is a light thing.

But shall we always discuss of catholicism?
Protestant doctrine is so tiny that there are not other points of discussion but anti-catholic ones?

 

[nephilimiyr]

But shall we always discuss of catholicism?
Protestant doctrine is so tiny that there are not other points of discussion but anti-catholic ones?

Unfortunately I agree with you here. It would seem that this thread has, for the most part, only served the purpose of argueing Catholic beliefs.

A note to my Protestant brothers and sisters. Instead of this thread being about Protestant doctrines and beliefs it is clear to me that this thread was created to argue Catholic doctrines and beliefs and that does no good in showing any kind of Protestant virtue and makes the Protestant belief look as narrow as a blade of grass.

There is no reason why Catholism has to come up in a discussion on Protestant beliefs. And when a Catholic wants to say you are wrong the best defence is to prove yourself right, not prove him wrong.

 

[lmnop9876]

Protestants are anti-lots of stuff, not just the [Vatican] Catholic Church
we are...
anti-arian
anti-nestorian
anti-monophysite
anti-eutychian
anti-monothelite
anti-gnostic
anti-donatist
anti-novatian
anti-pelagian
anti-appolinarianism (?SP?)
anti-anyone who denies the full deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit and their full equality and unity of substance with the Father
anti-anyone who denies the full humanity of Christ
anti-all who teach that we can be saved by anything other than the grace of God in Jesus Christ
&c. &c. &c.

 

[Lynn73]

No one in the CC is in submission to someone other that Christ!
We firmly look at the CC teachings (me too). That is very different.
And anyway 'roman' do not means that.

As He is presented through your church only? Those in my body of believers consider ourselves to be in submission to Christ also.

 

[A. believer]

What do you mean for submission?

I mean the same thing that Lynn meant, no doubt--that Roman Catholics are, by definition, under submission to the Roman Pontiff. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Roman Catholic apologists denying this statement. You're under the ultimate judicial authority of the pope and, by that definition, many of us consider the term "Roman Catholic" perfectly descriptive. In fact, many Roman Catholics use it as well. It's even used in some of your official documents.

But shall we always discuss of catholicism?
Protestant doctrine is so tiny that there are not other points of discussion but anti-catholic ones?

I'm not even involved in this discussion one way or the other. I just saw you making an outrageous statement--one that none of your popular apologists would ever make--and I'm holding you accountable for it.

If English is not your first language, which is what I suspect, then I suppose such a mistake might be excusable. But in that case, you would do well to be more open to correction. There's no shame in that.

 

[A. believer]

Unfortunately I agree with you here. It would seem that this thread has, for the most part, only served the purpose of argueing Catholic beliefs.

I haven't even read most of the thread, and frankly, I didn't even remember the thread topic when I saw that statement and responded. But, you said,

And when a Catholic wants to say you are wrong the best defence is to prove yourself right, not prove him wrong.

That's exactly what I was doing. A Catholic said Lynn (a Protestant) was wrong about whether or not Roman Catholic is an appropriate designation, and I proved that she was right.

 

[Tonks]

That's exactly what I was doing. A Catholic said Lynn (a Protestant) was wrong about whether or not Roman Catholic is an appropriate designation, and I proved that she was right.

All Roman rite are Catholic but not all Catholics are Roman....we've been down this road before.

I have no problem with the term even though it was first employed by Protestants as a pejorative. A confusion of episcopal governance and praxis. Then again, since many of they everyday (western) Protestants and Catholics have little exposure to the Eastern Rites (or Orthodoxy, for that matter) it shouldn't be so surprising.

 

[A. believer]

All Roman rite are Catholic but not all Catholics are Roman....we've been down this road before.

I have no problem with the term even though it was first employed by Protestants as a pejorative. A confusion of episcopal governance and praxis. Then again, since many of they everyday (western) Protestants and Catholics have little exposure to the Eastern Rites (or Orthodoxy, for that matter) it shouldn't be so surprising.

Yes, we have, and I remain unpersuaded. If a Catholic is under submission to the Roman Pontiff, it's appropriate to call him or her a Roman Catholic in my estimation. (And I trust you wouldn't deny that Catholics are under submission to the Roman Pontiff.)

It's not as if Roman Catholic is some kind of racial epithet or something. Just because it isn't the designation of choice for some Catholics, there's nothing inherently insulting about it, and it serves a particular purpose of identifying those who are in submission to the pope. But my main objection when people complain about the term is that I can't stand the bullying of the political correctness police. (And, for the record, I don't think you're in that category.)

 

[a_ntv]

If English is not your first language, which is what I suspect, then I suppose such a mistake might be excusable. But in that case, you would do well to be more open to correction. There's no shame in that.

English is not my first language, so perhaps 'tiny' was not the right word. And in that I apologize myself.

And my question was obviously rethoric. The aswer is NO.
For sure the protestant doctrine is not tiny.

So, why we are always on the same 5 catholic believes, even in a thread that is on 'protestant doctrine'?

I ld like that protestants will propone, and share, some positive doctrine, spirituality or practice.
Orthodoxes do it, and Im really learning.

There are lots of arguments that can be shared, like the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation, the way of praying, and so on...by far more interesting than the pope and the infallibility.