The quiet despair of Protestants

[liberty of conscience]

Of course the Word of God is truth. But whose understanding or interetation of it? ...

Do you agree with this:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[fhansen]

Do you agree with this:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Exactly. Private interpretations are the problem, fostered by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, evidenced by the divergency of beliefs based on the bible alone. Best to listen to the earthly entity that God established for that purpose, of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the gospel: His church.

Philip was of that group of disciples who made up the early church. He was able to expound on the meaning of Scripture, the Old Testament, while the Eunuch was at pains to understand without that informed input.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not earthly,, no.

Heavenly, yes. As the Father in heaven reveals as He Pleases.

 

[liberty of conscience]

Exactly. Private interpretations are the problem, fostered by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, evidenced by the divergency of beliefs based on the bible alone. Best to listen to the earthly entity that God established for that purpose, of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the gospel: His church.

Philip was of that group of disciples who made up the early church. He was able to expound on the meaning of Scripture, the Old Testament, while the Eunuch was at pains to understand without that informed input.

You did not answer the question. The question was, "Do you agree ..." with what was posted:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

There is nowhere in scripture that says that the "church" gets to "interpret".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When Yahweh grants understanding of His Word, it is truth.
When men do, if Yahweh does not, it can only be tradition.

 

[fhansen]

You did not answer the question. The question was, "Do you agree ..." with what was posted:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

There is nowhere in scripture that says that the "church" gets to "interpret".

Oh, ok, so it says you get to interpret it instead?

 

[liberty of conscience]

Oh, ok, so it says you get to interpret it instead?

No, and that was not the question asked either. I will ask one last time, and therefore, please read the texts, and answer the question, "Do you agree with the texts":

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[fhansen]

No, and that was not the question asked either. I will ask one last time, and therefore, please read the texts, and answer the question, "Do you agree with the texts":

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I answered it. Do you need an interpretation? And then I even addressed your comment at the end of post #124, which you failed to respond to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I answered it. Do you need an interpretation?

No, I just went and read the recent posts referred to.
You did not answer the question (possibly cannot?).

 

[fhansen]

No, I just went and read the recent posts referred to.
You did not answer the question (possibly cannot?).

Sorry, not playing a game here. You know the answer. No Catholic would disagree with the passages

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians...

First, Catholics and Orthodox are Christians too. Second, how do you define the infallibility of the Bible?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

We are saved by grace through faith in order to do works (Ephesians 2:8-10). I really don't understand why there is so much debate over this issue. It is written plain as day. No interpretation is required.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Do you agree with this:?

" … Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 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. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

I do not agree on several points, especially on the "Catholic faith" aspect which I find nowhere in scripture (I do however find "the faith of Jesus"; please keep in mind I was born into and raised Roman Catholic for 30 years, confirmed, etc.), but I do agree with the point that when I deny said points, I am "opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic church."

So do you have an infallible list of all teachings that are proposed as divinely revealed by the solemn magisterium of the Church, as distinguished or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, so that RCs may know what manner of assent is required?

As well as the unchanging interpretation of such (as in the unchanging clear meaning of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)

And is the CCC and canon law subject to change?

And is it up to the judgment of individual RCs as to when a person has incurred sententiae excommunication, or is that manifest by how Rome and the local ordinary manifests that?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Exactly. Private interpretations are the problem,

And please tell us just how the RC proof text, 2 Peter 1:20,21, refers to personally interpreting what is written, vs. leaving that up to the church?

fostered by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, evidenced by the divergency of beliefs based on the bible alone.

By that measure, since under your alternative, Sola Roma, in which the church provides all the sure Truth of God, evidences the divergency of beliefs based on what "The Church" alone teaches (depending on what century) then that model for ascertaining what is of God is also invalid. The Watchtower cult shows more unity than Catholicism, in which there is division ever on what tradition teaches .

Rather than the mighty magisterium being the perfect answer to division, she actually has caused more. As one poster wryly reported,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, Against The Grain

Best to listen to the earthly entity that God established for that purpose, of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the gospel: His church.

Certainly "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.." (the Westminster Confession - a major historical document on SS)

However, the church itself did not begin with souls heeding all the judgments of the historical magisterium, but with common souls rightly ascertaining who and what was of God, and thus following some itinerant preachers and their itinerant Lord versus those who did sit in the seat of Moses.

Thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Cath. model for ascertaining what is of God, as for a RC the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is to be the basis for their assurance of what is of God.

Thus, "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." - Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

Philip was of that group of disciples who made up the early church. He was able to expound on the meaning of Scripture, the Old Testament, while the Eunuch was at pains to understand without that informed input.

Which is what evangelicals do, expounding on the meaning of Scripture to such as to the seeking eunuch, preaching Christ, not a church as RCs mainly do.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (Acts 8:35)

Meanwhile, contrary to you, even the veracity of the apostle's preaching was subject to examination by Scripture, as all preaching is to be.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

For as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

What is the basis for your assurance of truth? That an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And yet division in Catholicism does not consist in dogma, for heretics are outside the faith and those who teach heresy are censured.

You can only wish. Assent is required for more than only infallible teachings, and just what all dogma consists of can be subject to interpretation (unless you have an infallible list showing what magisterial level each and every teaching all under), and judging when and who one is guilty of heresy can be quite difficult is subject to variant interpretations. And which Rome shows by her treatment, thus often conflicting what what the laity assert.

There is division in Catholicism (as well as legitimate diversity) but there are also established and effective means to limit division, and comparing the division in Catholicism to the division in Protestantism is comparing apples and oranges.

Comparing one church with whatever you can place under the umbrella of "Protestantism" - everything from Unitarianism to Scientology to Swedenborgian to Mormonism , to Russelism , to so-called Christian Science as well as liberal Protestantism - is hardly a valid comparison, unless one is defending this amalgamation as being the one true church.

You could could compare Rome with the EOs, seeing both compete for the title of one true church, or with individual Prot denoms, but comparing two different systems and based upon their basis for assurance of Truth would be more valid. That of assurance of what is of God being based on the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), or that of the weight of evidence. Want to go?

Tu quoque will only get you so far. The legitimate danger expressed in the OP is not limited to Protestantism, but it is strongly localized there. It is basically the danger of Enlightenment liberalism and relativism, the childhood friends of the Protestant traditions.

See above. Tu quoque is a Catholic argument, with an imagined unity in Catholicism, consisting of those Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death, which disunity actually stands in contrast to those who most strongly esteem the integrity and authority of Scripture.

And some trad. RCs also blame V2 redefinitions on the Enlightenment. Maybe you also wish for the days and all the means of the Inquisitions. In one century obedience to the pope meant exterminating all the heretics, and now it means affirming Muslims as worshiping the same God as Caths, and validly baptized faithful Prots in general as being born again believers in imperfect union with Rome. Though that depends upon one's interpretation of Lumen Gentium 16.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wait, not yet! Awaken from thy slumber oh sleepy one, and from the deception ye laboreth under.

Sorry. Ok, so how much weight does one such as yourself place on synods and magisterial teachings? And whose synods and magisteriums?

A believer is to conditionally submit to both civil magistrates of his province and country as well as to his church, as Jews were to those who sat in the seat of Moses. But rather than a type of divided kingdom earth-wise, there should be one central magisterium of apostolic integrity, yet which concept has been poisoned by the corruptions of Rome.

And recognize that not all non-Catholics would agree with you on that. Many are strictly and solely Scripture, accepting no input from any ancient historical legacy of the church.

But we should be dealing with a historical understanding of SS if it is to be attacked, even if the poster does not wholly agree with all it states.

redleghunter said: ↑

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What about when, "... Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals ..."

Is that which is "proposed definitively ..." (sic) "infallible" then? In otherwords when it is so "defined" can it ever be wrong, and can you ever disagree with it while it is so defined and not incur latae sententiae excomm.?

In RC teaching infallibility means that what is infallibly defined (not the arguments for it) is protected from error, and requires solemn assent, assent of faith, meaning they are not to doubt it but affirm and submit to it.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

In addition, religious assent, assent of mind and intellect, is required for the next magisterial level, non-infallible teaching of the ordinary mag., which constitutes most of RC treaching. These are said to be protected from salvific error, if not any.

Then there are those some refer to as teachings of the general magisterium, which a RC may disagree with. It is held that there are 3 or 4 magisterial levels (2 strictly infallible levels), but where each belongs is subject to interpretation (as well as often their meanings to some degree).

And in addition to papal bulls, you have,
Papal Encyclicals
Papal Briefs
Apostolic Exhortations
Apostolic Constitutions
Apostolic Letters
Motu Proprios (“Catholicism for Dummies”)

Some hold most of the above are infallible, others disagree, though assent be required, yet just what the assent requires sees debate.

The weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium depends on the dogmatic history of the teaching and the intention of the Supreme Pontiff. Papal addresses and documents invariably contain teachings in several categories of authority. The See of Peter - Categories of Documents

Which problem led to the exasperated reply by this poster:

rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - Catechism "infallible?"

The response to which is just obey everything:

Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis. Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - Catechism "infallible?"

Some Catholics contend that, "EVERY Papal Bull is ex cathedra, unless the Pope does not sign it with the Fihserman's ring. The Ring is a sign of His authority and power. Not only that, but even Encyclicals that are sealed with the fishermans ring and which have to do with faith and morals are ex cathedra.".. And another thing: the Pope does not speak ex cathedra ONLY hwne defining a doctrine on faith and morals but also when He speaks as Pope and teacher of all Catholics without defining any article of faith. Canonizations are infallible, not like how some crazy heretics who call Pius X an anti-pope say; encyclicals are infallible (most of them anyway); Bulls are infallible. Does Papal bull = Ex Cathedra?

Others opine, A Papal Bull (ie, bulletin) is a very low-level form of communication. It is unlikely that a Pope would use a Bull to express a teaching which requires the “religious assent” of all of the Faithful (I cannot think of an example where this has ever happened - and if it ever did, it would probably be a long time ago). Teaching requiring “religious assent” would usually be promulgated through an Encyclical or an Apostolic Constitution. We don't have to believe every Papal Bull

 

[liberty of conscience]

No, I just went and read the recent posts referred to.
You did not answer the question (possibly cannot?).

It's just a waste of time here. He is not answering a simple question. Moving on.

 

[Albion]

I read him as saying that Protestants are becoming doctrinal cynics (and perhaps relativists).

If that indeed was it, I was hoping for some evidence or at least specific statements.

 

[zippy2006]

If that indeed was it, I was hoping for some evidence or at least specific statements.

Is it not coming from his personal interactions with Protestant peers on campus?

I don't have any reason to doubt his description of college-age Protestants, even if it may be exaggerated. The meat and potatoes centers on the issue of how much credence a religious body must pay to its youth. Following the 2018 Synod the Catholic Church came under some scrutiny for paying too much attention to young people, yet I also see many elderly Catholics shielding themselves from the uncomfortable signs of the times foretold in the Catholic youth. So supposing one accepts his basic description it must be asked whether it is a sign of the future or merely an aberration.

Edit: I don't mean to deny the fact that there is a fair helping of youthful zeal in the OP. For that reason the Protestant annoyance is of course understandable. ...But there is also something interesting and potentially instructive.