Fireinfolding:
I think Oblio has a point.
I didnt understand the point, a log was pointed out as being in my own eye when adressing the present log regarding prots (so called) obedience (as measured and compared with Catholics). I was simply reminding Trento that disobedience (to God) is in ones own back yard. That one really neednt be looking in anothers backyard. I was simply holding up a mirror to the very (present) finger pointing in our (so called) direction.
When it comes to obedience, the Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Jews have an accountability that Protestants lack.
What kind of obedience and accountability is boasted of here? I must confess I'm pretty darn ignorant of most Prots (thangs) along with Catholic, Orthodox and Jews thangs here.
It appears there are many who walk in obedience to Christ and others who do not walk in obedience to Christ. Thats obviously seen in all camps wouldnt you agree?
When Peter was not walking uprightly in accordance to the truth of the gospel Paul didnt bite his lip and repeat (to himself) ~I must be obedient to Peter~ (without question) ~and I shall disassemble with the rest of them who dont question squat~. Gees, even when the cheif preists commanded no preaching in Christs name (any further) Peter and the rest of them (to their so called authorities) said they must obey God rather then men, so there are proper times.
In your estimation you really believe Protestants are not accountable to God with whom we all have to do?
I will agree teachers will receive the greater condemnation and (at least) Paul walked that he might not be "chargeable TO THEM" (before God) to Whom we are all accountable especially especially overseers of the flock of God. God will judge the sexually immoral, being led by them isnt advised (even the apostles state that) in fact we are to separate from anyone who calls himself a brother being like so. We are not to subject our children or ourselves to them, or shuffle them around in secret affording them the opportunity to do it again.
Best thing to do (I would think) believing onesellf to be in a position Authority (superior to others) would be to consider "prots" as little children. Besides, that will make those who feel they are appointed to them feel better.
To us "little children" (with weak consciences ofcourse) being little children (lol) We stumble over alot of stuff that appears as disobedience (among ourselves ourselves).
Some might regard certain things like, bowing to statutes, images, repetitious prayers, dead bones of saints, even Mary ressembling (somewhat) of the 4rth wheel in the trinity (and other such things) as stumbling blocks. Not to mention coming off as dominating lords over the faith of others and what appears as more preaching of themselves then of Christ. And indeed it does appear to many very much like that. The elder (as they might be considered) do come off (at times) as those stumbling the weaker... the childlike prots (like myself).
Now myself? I try not to acknowledge either (or) until another starts on the so called differences (elevating themselves) as is always the case. Its quite easy for me to simply determine not to utter their prayers (as others might) refrain from appealing to Mary or saints that have passed on. Not care too much about dead bones, follow after miracles, bow to statutes or images and the like. If others do, thats on them but I'm not required to. We should prove all things and if it is contrary then refrain from doing it especially so if ones conscience is contrary to it as well. Yet if fellowship is centered more on things contrary to what ones conscience allows for one will naturally seek fellowship in what ones conscience allows. So I do.
Isnt there a millstone involved for stumbling one of the "little ones" who believe in Him to sin? or even wounding a brothers weak conscience (pertaining to) that which they might regard as idols? Not to mention leading His servants (or their children) into sexual immorality. Though it is strange there is such a demand concerning obedience to themselves who are far from actually walking in it and being an example to the flock they should be.
In the protestant churches, each person gets to be their own interpreter of Scripture and therefore of morality. How many times have I heard protestants do the yada yada yada about how fornication doesn't really mean premarital sex in their particular circumstance? Protestants function as individuals, each their own, may I say it? Pope.
It doesnt require brain surgery for the obvious. Those with any sort of integrity know better and read what is plain in scripture about it. These dont preach license but there will always be the "many" who peddle the word of God for profit, gain and license, good thing we can cross check these nuts. Thats nothing new though the apostles show the same thing. That has nothing to do with interpretation but casting His words behind their back as it pertains to turning from His instruction and reproof in scriptures which were preached and confirmed already by the apostles.
Pope is Papa right? Theres one God the Father ( Who is the Big Papa) and one Lord Jesus Christ, and just because one walks regarding God (as so being) does not mean they consider themselves as such.
Even in such cases as Paul who had begotten them by the gospel of God (that which was in Him) and was received of God come not in word only (to them) but in power (from God). God had surely put a disctinction between Paul and the mighty work (done among them) as was evidenced in them. They knew very well the power that worked within them which bore witness to God and of Christ in Paul to them that heard him.
It is not this way elsewhere.
What way in particular? How is it so bad? Some weigh out what the Pope says along with others, some agree with the Pope and others not, the same with Prots.
Elsewhere the culture is that of community. The individual is not a law unto himself.
Being law to oneself (or shewing the work of the law) written in ones heart is spoken of. To Love God and others are the two which sums up the whole law and the prophets. What are you seeing (per scripture) thats negative concerning this?
There is none of this "The holy spirit will personally reveal it to me."
How sad this is most honestly. Even that the Holy Spirit teaching or revealing anything to anyone is a contemptable (and almost an unbelievable) thing?
I suppose with that outlook one will have to rely on what flesh and blood has revealed to them only. They would have to let their faith rest on the wisdom of men alone. Especially upon those who might not have (nor either) instill a confidence in the power of God (Christ). The One in whom we are to abide and who is able to teach us all things. This is in contrast to any man teaching.
And thus there aren't a thousand different interpretations WITHIN the given community:
There has always been interpretations, why would that shock anyone? Some over the non esentials and others over the more essential. There will not cease to be "carnal men" not being able to discern the things of the Spirit (as they are spiritually discerned). Being "children" in this spiritual age (so to speak) will be tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine (as it is written) in relation to men lying in wait to deceive others. The same is true of men of among our own numbers arising who want nothing more then to make any one of us followers after themselves. To be "no more children" by drinking the pure milk of the word and exercising ourselves unto discernment, is part of coming to our "full age" is very much a part of growing up in Christ.
Even many Catholic's can state what the Pope says is "doctrine" and disagree with it. Just because its cemented in concrete (over in Rome) does not mean all Catholics see it as true (even as many prots might not) either. Both will let it go in one ear and right out the other. It will be disregarded or agreed to.
all the Orthodox agree it will be done this way. Catholics do it that way. Jews do it this other way. There is agreement within the given community. And because there is agreement there is accountability.
Prots change nothing. Most Prots can repeat some of the doctrines of Rome and they neither change anything (as it pertains to) what is declared at Rome, anymore then disagreeing Catholics change anything by disagreeing Rome either.
Where is the accountability in any of these things if both equally can disregard or accept what Rome says? I dont see any difference between either.
Its in ones own heart or conscience one disbelieves something. Both can do that equally (and both do it) whether coming together in assembly in one building (financed under RC) to worship God or in another building (financed by a Prot, who is prot by fault of not agreeing with Rome). So they both just disagree (or agree) assembling only in different buildings (even as most Catholics do the same) to worship God as they would.
The pope is not in either building (but both agreement and disagreement with him exists in both). The buildings are not even relevant. Whether in one or another (from within them both) consists of those who are either buying it or not buying it (simply put). The very same goes for prots not buying (or buying into) what another prot says. I see them walking the same in this respect.
Ohhhhhh, sure, there are those who disobey. But they know they are disobeying.
Absolutely, both are the same in that regard as well. Whether (for example) Prot preachers fornicating or Catholic Preists molesting children, both know they are disobeying God. They are given over (in themselves) to their own lusts to do what ought not be done, equally so. Its among both camps, showing (again) there is no difference between men in regards to such things. Thats quite obvious.
A Catholic might say "I'm Catholic and I disagree with the church's teaching on birth control and refuse to follow it," but he WON'T say, "I'm Catholic and Catholicism teaches that birth control is okay."
The same goes for Prots. Any one of them could say, "Catholics teach no birth control" (because they might know what a Catholic teaches concerning it). They too (just as Catholics I know do) disagree with it and refuse to follow that mandate. Again, it is the same everywhere. Most likely, if one asked a Prot whyso? They might give their scriptural (as so sought out) reasons why they dont. So again, neither a Catholics disagreement or a Prots disagreement changes nothing in regards to what is mandated from Rome. In both cases its either disbelieved and thus disregarded (in the both of them) or believed and regarded in the same.
Those who disobey are asked to refrain from communion.
They would then have to eat at home now wouldnt they? Or with other prots who dont see it as something not to eat bread over. There is always a place to eat bread, examining oneself is more important.
Those who create scandal are denied it.
Depends on what you define as scandal, I can only guess. On boards such as this you must ask. Is it defined as Paul confronting a correctable Peter? Had Peter thought he was right (having with him and on his side) his many dissambled followers Paul would have surely been seen as a scandlous fellow . Perhaps even Paul could have been denied the same with that attitude. I would account the denier (or overlord) as the one who gives an account to God for His actions just as I would expect God to punish the wrong doer and lead him to repentance if wrong. In this case Peter and the majority had it wrong not the one who disagreed with them. Paul surely couldnt take the church with him because they were all dissembled with Peter (the so called) head of the church.
Those who create dissension are disfellowshiped. At least, until such time as repentance and reconciliation take place.
Just as I said elsewhere, one can disagree (even quietly) disregard it, while never saying a word (which is often done). They can continue to participate (while they pop birth control) allowing no one any knowledge of it. Therefore its never even known by the administers of it. The control others think they have is simply an illusion in their own minds. Dissension isnt good but again how a greek strongs concordance might define something is often redefined by the RC Church so I havent a clue.
You simply won't, CAN'T, find this on the same level in Protestant churches.
I see it everywhere equally, along with a bunch of folks in denial about it.
Just as I see it, but Im not Rome so I matter so little in the scheme of things.
Peace
Fireinfolding
Ummm, Jesus, not Judah, is now the Sceptre of ALL Israel and non-Israel. 
