The Protestant Reformation

[Thorin]

Well, Malbeth suggested that we start a thread discussing the positive and negative effects of the Reformation. Apparently, he hasn't had enough of us sinking our meat-hook claws into each other. :D

Before I start, let me just say that my heritage is Roman Catholic. I was an RC until I was 14 (being from a French family was there any other faith? :) ) The good majority of my family on both sides (24 aunts and uncles directly related to mom and dad, and 71 first cousins) you can see how the "no birth control" thing panned out. :))) still claim to be Catholic. So I am not trying to be derogatory towards Catholics if my language seems to be heading in that general direction. I have more respect for the Catholic faith then most Protestant faiths. We can learn alot from our Catholic brethren in terms of reverance, sanctity and respect for God and the sanctuary. Something a good chunk of Protestant churches lack. God bless the Catholics!

So here we go.

Was the Reformation necessary? I believe that it was. Here was a Midieval church that persecuted scientists, free thinkers and religious scholars because they felt that only the church leaders had the direct power from God to determine what was true and what wasn't. Even if this controlling attitude was acceptable, it fell short because the church leaders gradually moved away from the apostolic faith and substituted tradition, rituals and superstition in its place. The desire for power and wealth corrupted Her from the top to the bottom. People were being put to the death just for raising valid biblical points to counteract some of the false doctrine and abuses taking place.

I find it very interesting that Reformers like Wycliffe and Luther were not trying to slam the church or separate in any way. They loved the church and just wanted to see the abuses and false beliefs reconciled to the Bible so their church could be an example to the people who had been left in the dark for so long. They had enough faith in their church that they thought they would be recognized, being biblical scholars themselves. Instead they were met with ridicule, scorn, total defiance and eventually death without even any consideration that what they might be saying is true. No dialogue, no discussion. Just "You are preaching heresy, do you recant?"

Because of the Reformation, the people had the Bible to read for themselves and were taken out of the cruel and controlling persecuting Midieval church. Salvation by grace alone replaced a works oriented salvation that oppressed the people and made them culturally and spiritually destitute.

We can thank God that the Reformers stood up for truth and didn't allow the faith and gospel message of Christ and the apostles die.

*(Waits for the onslaught by Eriol and Malbeth that inevitably will come :) )*

[Elendil3119]

I am (semi) prepared to help defend the position that the Reformation was necessary and a good thing.

By the time of the Reformation, the Church of Rome had fallen into some serious errors, including lay investiture, simony, and the selling of indulgences. Also, the whole superstructure of the Church had been built on a false premise: that somehow we can be good enough to please God.

John Calvin, one of the leaders of the Reformation, said, “Our desire is neither to remake or unmake the church, rather it is but to recover it – of such is reformation”. He believed that the purpose of the Reformation was to recover medievalism. The reformers did NOT want to create something new; they desperately wanted to recover the Church of Jesus Christ, once and for all. Orthodoxy was seen by the Reformers as the great hope of the Church. “The Church left the Reformers, the Reformers did not lead the Church”, said Kuiper. The purpose of the Reformation was not to create something new, but to recover the old.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide. Sola Gratia. Solo Deo Gloria.

[Eriol]

I am (semi) prepared to help defend the position that the Reformation was necessary and a good thing.

Oh, but I am not prepared to attack it.

:D

You see, to claim that the Reformation is "necessary and good" is almost a truism. To deny "necessity" would be to claim that the Church never had any secular flaws, which is plain nonsense, since the Church is composed by fallible men; to deny "goodness" would be to deny Providence.

(I am more than semi-prepared to defend the goodness of the Holocaust... accepting its "evilness" would be denying Providence, or, as Eru would say, "All things concur to the Glory of the One". We live in the best of all possible words, as Leibniz said and Dr. Pangloss satirized -- but it is true nonetheless).

You are skipping the point, or at least hiding it beneath these concepts. There is one and only one question to be answered -- was the Reformation correct? Did it really raise valid points of doctrine? That is the only question.

All would agree that the division of the Church is a shameful thing, and that as regards this the Reformation (not the Reformers, mind you) was a failure. But if it was doctrinallly correct, then the blame must be laid at the Catholic Church; if not, then it must be laid with the Reformers. (And this would not mean it is not a good thing!).

So, how can we decide what is correct doctrine? In spite of all protests by resident protestants, there is no Catholic doctrine in contradiction with the Bible. So to claim that Scripture can solve the problem is false. We have the same Scriptures, and the same Reason, and the same honesty, so any difference is due to interpretation, fallible human interpretation. The problem is that this fallibility accrues both to Protestants and Catholics, and therefore to claim that "we" (whoever it is) have the true interpretation without any further argument is simply arrogant.

So Scripture alone is not a useful standard, even though it is equally accepted by all parties. (If you still think it is, try to disprove any Catholic doctrine using Scripture. Poor Thorin has been trying to do that in his Hell thread with little to no success. And I'm sure I could do the same with a Protestant doctrine. In the end, nobody would be convinced, since it rests on interpretation, and none of us, by ourselves, have The Keys to Perfect Interpretation).

There is, however, another standard, which is accepted by all:

The reformers did NOT want to create something new; they desperately wanted to recover the Church of Jesus Christ, once and for all.

This means, of course, that we should look at the beginning of the Church to solve interpretation problems. "Recover" means just that. There was quite obviously a Church directly informed by Jesus Christ, including the guys who wrote the New Testament, and it would be very presumptuous of us to claim that our interpretation of the Bible is correct while theirs isn't. And this is the ultimate standard for doctrinal correctness -- whether it was accepted by the First Church, St. Paul, St. Peter, and co., or not. These guys spoke with Jesus, lived with him, they surely knew A LOT more about him than we do.

And this, conversely, turns the matter into a plain historical question. Whenever you see a doctrinal question between Catholics and Protestants, in which both are using the Scripture and no one convinces the other, there is a simple way of solving it: look at the First Church to see what She believed.

And now the big surprise -- the First Church IS the Catholic Church.

;)

Protestants are taught a garbled history of the Church (and they are not alone at that, the whole world is mistaken in a lot of things about it), in which "heresy" and "apostasy" appeared somewhere in the 4th century and took hold of the Church. There is a simple way to test that -- compare the beliefs of that time, and the beliefs of contemporary Catholics, with what we know of the beliefs of the first Church. You will be amazed if you do it (though I don't have too much hope that you will actually do it :( ). Folks, every single belief of the Catholic Church, including the most "outrageous" ones such as Purgatory, The Real Presence in the Eucharist, veneration of relics and saints, etc., was right there from the beginning.

We are the First Church.

Your two posts just show the misconceptions common about Protestants:

By the time of the Reformation, the Church of Rome had fallen into some serious errors, including lay investiture, simony, and the selling of indulgences. Also, the whole superstructure of the Church had been built on a false premise: that somehow we can be good enough to please God.

That is a heresy, Pelagianism I believe, Elendil. The Church NEVER taught that we can be good enough on our own merits. That you think She did is evidence of misunderstanding. (I am constantly amazed at the misconceptions Protestants have about Catholic doctrine. No wonder they think it is wrong.)

And thus, it is a plain historical error to say that the Church had been built on that premise.

They had enough faith in their church that they thought they would be recognized, being biblical scholars themselves. Instead they were met with ridicule, scorn, total defiance and eventually death without even any consideration that what they might be saying is true.

Your hidden premise here, Thorin, is that the prior Faith of the Church (the Catholic Faith) is not built upon biblical scholarship. But of course it is. The Reformers were treated as heretics because, well, that's what they were. Heretics in that time were not treated with "dialogue, discussion", and this goes for Protestants as well -- Protestants did quite a big deal of burnings and witch-hunts.

As usual the criticism lies upon the mediaeval culture, and the Church is untouched. (The Crusades are also a case in point). you can approve or disapprove of treating heretics harshly, but to say that the Church alone is wrong in doing that is plain historical error. Everybody did it.

As whether the Reformers were right or not, their biblical doctrines had to stand up comparison with other biblical scholars -- why should they be privileged simply by being alive, having followers? The Church is not a democracy, the truth can't be determined by numbers. Thomas Aquinas; Augustine; Jerome; etc. These guys, and many others, had plenty of biblical scholarship, and they disagreed with the reformers. Why should the reformers be automatically right?

(This again can be shown in the Hell thread. No amount of biblical scholarship is enough to prove or disprove anything)

And so we are left with the outside standard, the First Church. And I quite agree that Luther, Calvin, and co. thought they were restoring the First Church. They had good intentions (though we know what paves the road to Hell...).

Problem is, they were wrong. Their beliefs were NOT those of the First Church. Again, I urge you to study the matter, it is an empirical observation, not "interpretation". The first Church took it for granted that the bread becomes the body of Christ in the Eucharist -- the first time any different doctrine appeared was in the 9th century. And so on.

Was the Reformation good? Probably. It corrected a lot of things in the Church (though NOTHING in doctrinal matters). There had been other reforms, peaceful reforms, in the Church, earlier; there were others later. Reform is not the problem, heresy is.

Was it doctrinally correct? Empirically (and I emphasize, empirically), no. It taught wrong doctrine. And we have a lot of quotes from Thorin about the dangers of wrong doctrine :). So you see why the Church could not embrace the Reformers.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
To deny "necessity" would be to claim that the Church never had any secular flaws, which is plain nonsense, since the Church is composed by fallible men; to deny "goodness" would be to deny Providence.

Interesting that you use "secular flaws". You are implying that there were no spiritual flaws? And yet you say that the church was composed of fallible men. Spiritual and doctrinal flaws are a given with fallible men. The Church, however, doesn't agree with that. "The Church has never erred, nor will ever err" has been the motto especially of the Midieval church. You may take the stance that this is only in the case of when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra", but this was not the stance of the Midieval church.

Originally posted by Eriol
Was the Reformation correct? Did it really raise valid points of doctrine? That is the only question.....So, how can we decide what is correct doctrine? In spite of all protests by resident protestants, there is no Catholic doctrine in contradiction with the Bible. So to claim that Scripture can solve the problem is false. We have the same Scriptures, and the same Reason, and the same honesty, so any difference is due to interpretation, fallible human interpretation.

One cannot put the blame on interpretation when the issue does not even exist to debate. Please show me in the scriptures where there ever was such a place as purgatory? The Bible does not teach it. It is either saved, or lost. Heaven or "hell". Please show me where buying indulgences to pay our way out of purgatory or cut down on the amount of time we spend in it is biblical? When the Bible says that only the grace and blood of Christ can allow us to heaven that automatically negates any "penance" or payment. The problem with your reasoning here, Eriol (as in the Evolution/Creation and Hell/Soul debates) is that you are using argument by silence. If the Bible doesn't literally and blatantly DENY such a thing, then it is feasible. I don't need the Bible to tell me that the sky is not green if it tells me that it is blue before I reject the fact that the sky is not green.

Originally posted by Eriol
So Scripture alone is not a useful standard, even though it is equally accepted by all parties. (If you still think it is, try to disprove any Catholic doctrine using Scripture. Poor Thorin has been trying to do that in his Hell thread with little to no success. And I'm sure I could do the same with a Protestant doctrine. In the end, nobody would be convinced, since it rests on interpretation, and none of us, by ourselves, have The Keys to Perfect Interpretation).

And I feel you are wrong. The Catholic church has always taken the stance that the Bible AND tradition was considered the word of God. The Bible makes it plain that all things (at least spiritual) are to be tested by scripture. Christ says, "They teach in vain, the commandments of men as the commandments of God". The Church was doing exactly that and it took enlightened and independent thinking scholars of the Catholic faith to realise that the Church had fallen away from the scriptures in doctrine (not in interpretation) and call for a renewal of the apostolic faith and the early church doctrines. And as far as the Bible goes, I believe I have proven what the scriptures do teach about the hell issue. Interpretation only differs and fails when one doesn't take into account the whole of scripture and not take a little bit to base one's entire argument on. When this is done, you must add something other than scripture to base it on. Therefore, I can see your argument about not relying solely on scripture. However, this is not what the Bible asks us to do when interpreting spiritual things.

Originally posted by Eriol
And this, conversely, turns the matter into a plain historical question. Whenever you see a doctrinal question between Catholics and Protestants, in which both are using the Scripture and no one convinces the other, there is a simple way of solving it: look at the First Church to see what She believed.....Folks, every single belief of the Catholic Church, including the most "outrageous" ones such as Purgatory, The Real Presence in the Eucharist, veneration of relics and saints, etc., was right there from the beginning.
Really? And I suppose that even when the disciples and the first church in Jerusalem were around that they were practicing confession, forgiveness of sins, purgatory, indulgences, infant baptism and relics? Not even close. These were introduced quite a bit later and without scriptural support. Like I said, the church believed in the Bible AND tradition. When you believe that God has put you in power as THE only church, this tradition is accepted as gospel. Who cares if it is not in the Bible? Were these the normal apostolic traditions, you wouldn't have had Catholic loving monks and priests protesting in the first place. The Church in their pomp and display and desire for wealth and control fell away from where it had been and had lost the faith of Christ.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
Interesting that you use "secular flaws". You are implying that there were no spiritual flaws? And yet you say that the church was composed of fallible men. Spiritual and doctrinal flaws are a given with fallible men. The Church, however, doesn't agree with that. "The Church has never erred, nor will ever err" has been the motto especially of the Midieval church. You may take the stance that this is only in the case of when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra", but this was not the stance of the Midieval church.

I am implying there were no doctrinal flaws. How can the CHURCH have spiritual flaws? A Pope, a lot of Popes, I can see, but the Church? No, it either has doctrinal flaws or secular flaws. Spiritual flaws are quite alien to the Church's nature. Can it be greedy? Proud? How?

Since we agree that we are fallible, I think we may skip that part, Thorin. You are simply wrong when you say the Church thought of itself as infallible in every subject in mediaeval times. The many peaceful reforms show this to be wrong. You don't reform if you are Always Right...



One cannot put the blame on interpretation when the issue does not even exist to debate. Please show me in the scriptures where there ever was such a place as purgatory? The Bible does not teach it. It is either saved, or lost. Heaven or "hell". Please show me where buying indulgences to pay our way out of purgatory or cut down on the amount of time we spend in it is biblical? When the Bible says that only the grace and blood of Christ can allow us to heaven that automatically negates any "penance" or payment. The problem with your reasoning here, Eriol (as in the Evolution/Creation and Hell/Soul debates) is that you are using argument by silence. If the Bible doesn't literally and blatantly DENY such a thing, then it is feasible. I don't need the Bible to tell me that the sky is not green if it tells me that it is blue before I reject the fact that the sky is not green.

Not the argument from silence, proper. Say rather the argument that the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition. (I'll have more to say about it below). If Sacred Tradition says something, and the Bible does not contradict it, then it is correct.

Thorin, this is common sense. (The problem with YOUR reasoning is that you refuse common sense, in all of the mentioned discussions). Sacred Tradition came before there was a Bible. It wrote the Bible. In the Bible there are many passages saying that the Bible is NOT the whole truth about Christ, and that the Church keeps the faith. So my beliefs in this case are quite Scriptural, and yours aren't... I find that ironic.

This has nothing to do with science. It has to do with cause and effect. Tradition is the cause of the Bible. (By the way, why did the so very Scriptural Protestants change the canon, edit St. Paul, throw away James, etc., Thorin?)

As for particular examples, such as purgatory, there are Scriptural passages. Let me check the Cathechism... here it is:

1 Cor 3, 15
1 Pt 1, 7
Mt 12, 32

As Elendil once said, "that's inconclusive". And I answered to him, "it is not grounded only in the Scriptures, but also in Tradition". And these passages run counter to your simplistic "saved/lost" reasoning.


Really? And I suppose that even when the disciples and the first church in Jerusalem were around that they were practicing confession, forgiveness of sins, purgatory, indulgences, infant baptism and relics? Not even close. These were introduced quite a bit later and without scriptural support. Like I said, the church believed in the Bible AND tradition.

The answer is quite simple -- yes. The disciples were in fact teaching purgatory, confession, forgiveness of sins, relics... It's an empirical matter, Thorin. Go look for it. You dismiss it as fanciful, but it is simply the truth. "Like you said, the Church believed in the Bible and Tradition"... of these, Tradition came first, historically and logically. It is Protestants who rejected the first thing, not Catholics.

Tradition, perhaps surprisingly, is traditional. You don't go about changing it. You seem to think that the Church had a mind of its own, and was hungry for power (the "spiritual flaws" that are quite impossible in an organization, be it the Church or any other organization). That's your right. But you have to show that the tradition is not there from the beginning. The preservation of tradition is the job of the Church, it is quite... arrogant to assume She got it wrong without checking the facts.

Once again, it is empirical. Arguing won't solve it. Look for it.

[Elendil3119]

1 Corinthians 3:15 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
1 Peter 1:7 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
Matthew 12:32 32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
I really don't see what Matthew 12:23 has to do with 'purgatory'. :confused: I believe that if Christ taught purgatory, He would have stated it much more 'clearly' in the Bible.
If Sacred Tradition says something, and the Bible does not contradict it, then it is correct.
By default?? The Christian faith is not a blind following of tradition. We must examine every doctrine by the Bible, Tradition or otherwise.

Sorry for the short post, I'll try to write more later.

[Eriol]

If the sin against the Holy Spirit won't be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come, it follows that a lesser sin can be forgiven in the age to come. You know more about the Greek of it than I do, Elendil, is this "age to come" in any way related to what happens after death? In Portuguese is sounds as if it does.

If some sins can be forgiven after death, Purgatory follows.

Funny. Purgatory is not clearly taught in the Bible, and so you disbelieve it; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one of the clearest teachings in the Bible, and you disbelieve it also. I would call that a "blind refusal of tradition" ;).

As for "blind following of tradition", I don't see what is blind about it. And it is not "tradition" that I was referring to, it was "Sacred Tradition".

We won't follow anything blindly. But Sacred Tradition is as valid (indeed, it is logically MORE valid) as the Bible. We follow both, with our eyes opened.

Think of it in this way, Elendil: If St. Paul tells you that Purgatory was taught by Christ, and it did not become more explicit in the NT because the NT is, after all, NOT a catechism but rather a collection of letters from the Apostles, and they addressed doubtful points in the letters, not what was pretty much considered obvious, what would you say?

That's the Catholic position. We believe that St. Paul (or rather, the Apostles as a group) told us a LOT of things that are not EXPLICITLY in the Bible (though they are never in contradiction with it, for Truth can't contradict Truth). We call that Sacred Tradition (or Apostolic Tradition, by the way).

Would you say we are "blindly following tradition" when you look at it this way? We are, rather, blindly following the Apostles.

The only point of attack, as I said, is proving that the Sacred Tradition did not, in fact, begin with the Apostles. I invite you to try it. Examine all Catholic/Protestant controversies, and check the evidence regarding the First Church.

You may be surprised.

I prefer short posts, at least while it is one against two... :D

when Malbeth shows up it will be a more even discussion, especially because he knows much more than I do about this matter.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Not the argument from silence, proper. Say rather the argument that the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition. (I'll have more to say about it below). If Sacred Tradition says something, and the Bible does not contradict it, then it is correct.....Thorin, this is common sense. (The problem with YOUR reasoning is that you refuse common sense, in all of the mentioned discussions). Sacred Tradition came before there was a Bible. It wrote the Bible. In the Bible there are many passages saying that the Bible is NOT the whole truth about Christ, and that the Church keeps the faith. So my beliefs in this case are quite Scriptural, and yours aren't... I find that ironic.

From your last post, you say that Sacred Tradition is what is not what was explicitly said by the apostles, but implied. Isn't that nothing more than assumption? The scriptures that were compiled into the canon (by the early church fathers nonetheless) were the same scriptures pre and post canonization. What was put together by the guidance of the Holy Spirit means that what was in it was worth following. Sacred Tradition has nothing to do with what was directly penned and put down for the church's guidance. What is assumed is invalid with what was actually written. When what was actually written says: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. - 1 Timothy 2:5andSeeing then that we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession..Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that wemay obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. - Hebrews 4:14,16 that is something we can take to the bank. However, then the Church establishes a sarcedotal system even worse then what Christ came to abolish in the Jewish system. Confessions are given to the priests and without his forgiveness, the soul is condemned. "Without the Church there is no salvation". Excommunication was a soul condemning sentence and a great use of power and control by the Church. This is a direct contradiction of the scriptures and the empowering of the people to approach Christ directly for forgiveness. No penance or necessary sacraments, no Hail Marys, no confession to a priest, no indulgences. This is not sacred tradition or implied apostolic teaching. This is false doctrine.

This is what those faithful Catholic priests like Wycliffe and Luther discovered and wished for their beloved church to correct. The church thought they were above that sort of reproach even by some of their best scholars. It is unbelievable to me that popes (some of whom were quite unschooled in the scriptures and actually bought the throne through political means) had the arrogance to condemn Hebrew and Greek scholars as heretics when they said that the church was not following the Bible. Meanwhile some of the Popes (like anti-pope John XXIII in 1415 around the time that Huss was executed) was convicted of sodomy, incest, murder and simony.Originally posted by Eriol
As for particular examples, such as purgatory, there are Scriptural passages. Let me check the Cathechism... here it is:

1 Cor 3, 15
1 Pt 1, 7
Mt 12, 32

As Elendil once said, "that's inconclusive". And I answered to him, "it is not grounded only in the Scriptures, but also in Tradition". And these passages run counter to your simplistic "saved/lost" reasoning.
To apply these scriptures to purgatory is incredibly stretching. The "trial by fire" is nothing more than the testing of our faith. Is our foundation strong enough? That will be tested by "fire" as the Bible uses symbolically in many instances of the scriptures to mean the tests of our faith. This is why it is dangerous to only take one scripture while ignoring the rest. If you look at 1 Peter 1:6 and 7 together, it says:Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be. YE ARE IN HEAVINESS THROUGH MANIFOLD TEMPTATIONS: THAT THE TRIAL OF YOUR FAITH BEING MUCH MORE PRECIOUS THAN OF GOLD THAT PERISHETH, THOUGH IT BE TRIED BY FIRE, MIGHT BE FOUND UNTO PRAISE AND HONOUR AND GLORY AT THE APPEARING OF JESUS CHRIST
Amazing how this all happens BEFORE Christ comes a second time. This has nothing to do with the afterlife. Unbelievable.Originally posted by Eriol The answer is quite simple -- yes. The disciples were in fact teaching purgatory, confession, forgiveness of sins, relics... It's an empirical matter, Thorin. Go look for it. You dismiss it as fanciful, but it is simply the truth. "Like you said, the Church believed in the Bible and Tradition"... of these, Tradition came first, historically and logically. It is Protestants who rejected the first thing, not Catholics.
Eriol, I am staggered by the pompous arrogance of this statement. Not only do you have no such proof for a ridiculous statement of the above, but you have direct contradiction of the scriptures in those matters, from direct mention by the apostles themselves. Yet, you say that the apostolic church has always done these things from sacred tradition??Originally posted by Eriol Tradition, perhaps surprisingly, is traditional. You don't go about changing it. You seem to think that the Church had a mind of its own, and was hungry for power (the "spiritual flaws" that are quite impossible in an organization, be it the Church or any other organization). That's your right. But you have to show that the tradition is not there from the beginning. The preservation of tradition is the job of the Church, it is quite... arrogant to assume She got it wrong without checking the facts.
But you yourself said, Sacred Tradition is what was not written or spoken, but implied. That leaves the door open for the creation of man made traditions, not supported or endorsed by scripture. And yet you say that these take precedence over what is in the scripture (or that seems to be your logic) Tradition is perfectly fine. As long as it does not contradict the scriptures or is passed off as salvation issues like the church has done throughout the ages. When I am told by tradition that I must go to a priest and say 10 'Hail Marys', 8 'Our Fathers' and walk up the stairs of St. Peter's Basilica on my knees, or just skip it all and pay some coin to the "lets build another cathedral" fund to get my forgiveness and the Bible says that I can come boldly before the throne of grace through Christ Jesus, which is right?

The Pharisees had lots of tradition and used that against Christ. Tradition over scripture. They misused the Torah something fierce to further their own spiritual strangle hold over the people. Jesus came to dispel the foolish ritualistic nature of the Pharisees to open their eyes to the simplicity of the gospel. He did away with sarcedotalism and the sanctuary by becoming the mediator between man and God. No more ritual. This is what the apostles and the early church followed. Then the Church went right back into it. Phariseeism in another guise. When did this occur? I don't honestly know. Like all apostasy, it was gradual and I can pretty much tell you that it didn't happen in the early church. With a few exceptions (i.e. like Origen), there wasn't really anything noticeably erroneous until the church began to take political as well as religious power over Europe in the mid 6th century.

I say again: Were the church perfectly hunky-dory in itself and not wrong in spiritual matters, then the highest thinking minds of its own organization would not have felt the need to reform. The peasants who knew nothing more then an oppressive spiritual darkness would have had more reason to revolt and reform. They didn't. Instead, it was those who were in the organisation all their life and dedicated themselves to it that saw where the church was going wrong. They wanted to help, hoping that the church they loved would see the logic and reason in it.

People who were trained to read the scriptures and follow the faith of Christ by their very church were then told to disregard it contradictions were found against the pomp and splendour of the popes. The Bible was kept from the people because the church felt that they would misuse the scriptures and only those trained in the bible could interpret it. Well, here you had it. Scholars who immersed themselves in the scriptures protested against veneration of the saints, transubstantiation, purgatory and indulgences. Why? Because they are found nowhere in the scriptures and are contradicted by those very same scriptures. What does that tell you? Were they misguided?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
From your last post, you say that Sacred Tradition is what is not what was explicitly said by the apostles, but implied.

Sorry, but no. I said that Sacred Tradition is precisely what was said by the Apostles, but did not get into the Scripture. There is no "implying" going around.

People who were trained to read the scriptures and follow the faith of Christ by their very church were then told to disregard it contradictions were found against the pomp and splendour of the popes. The Bible was kept from the people because the church felt that they would misuse the scriptures and only those trained in the bible could interpret it. Well, here you had it. Scholars who immersed themselves in the scriptures protested against veneration of the saints, transubstantiation, purgatory and indulgences. Why? Because they are found nowhere in the scriptures and are contradicted by those very same scriptures. What does that tell you? Were they misguided?

A lot of factual errors... and yes, they were misguided, since they assumed that Scripture is self sufficient, when there is a lot of reasons (and even Scriptural support!) for the idea that the Scripture does not stand on its own, but needs the Sacred Tradition.

And now I have to quote myself:

I don't have too much hope that you will actually do it :(

From my first post on this thread. "It" was examining the evidence for the practices of the First Church.

It seems I was right :(

[Malbeth]

Hi all! (getting my meat-hook claw out)

It seems that we all agree that the Catholic Church, as it existed in the 16th century, had to be reformed. What is disagreed is what kind of reform was necessary, if it was merely a moral reform, designed to put away some practical abuses (i.e, basically what happened at the Council of Trent) or a total reform, doctrinal, moral, juridical and so on (i.e., the Protestant Reform). In a much used metaphor, whether the Boat of St. Peter had to be cleaned of some dirt that had caught to it or whether it had to be destroyed and reassembled again..

Adressing some general things that have already been said;

Thorin says that the Reform was basically some very good scholars, who studied the bible deeply, discovering things about the bible that the blind, ignorant churchmen could not accept. This is simply not true... Whether one pope or another was ignorant is very different from saying that there were no scholars then who supported what the Church taught. There were scholars on both sides, there were good men on both sides, and it makes no sense to demonize (or stupidize) one side and exalt the other.

So, what kind of reformation was needed? Were the reformers right on their teachings or was the Church? It seems we agree that being right is believing what the first Christians believed. So, as Eriol has said, it is simply a matter of finding out what the first Christians believed.

However, I don't think that the way this discussion is going will prove very fruitful. I think that instead of just throwing out all the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants together and saying "The early Christians agreed with us" and "No, they really agreed with us", we should go doctrine by doctrine, only discussing two doctrines together when they're closely connected and firmly refusing to discuss anything that is not related to the particular doctrine we're discussing. If we come to a stalemate, we can try to discuss another doctrine, but I think that in order to avoid this we should begin with the fundamentals (like Sola Scriptura vs Scripture + Other writings showing the beliefs of early Christians as they develop through time)

I do believe that this is the only way that any fruit may come out of this discussion (which is not to say that I'll not argue if no one accepts my suggestion, but I think that sooner or later we will all become exhasperated if we don't do it this way).

[Thorin]

I also think we must define "early church". To me, early church does not necessarily mean, "apostolic church". Though I do believe that there was some heresy already present quickly after the last disciples died out, I think we must look the first councils and before to see what was laid out for the church. And Eriol, unless God gave some specific light that was not given to anyone else in the world, how can you possibly know what the apostles said that was not written in the scriptures? Really, I truly find this arrogant and presumptuous to know what the disciples said when there is no written record anywhere. Where were these "documents" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? I truly hope that you are not talking about the pseudipigrapha. Why were they not compiled into sacred writings along with the canon in 397 AD??

It seems that penance and indulgences were already present by the Council of Nicea so I think we need go back further then to see what was believed. If you find blatant support of such things as confession and forgiveness of a priest, veneration of saints and relics and other such traditions, then we must go further back. However, keep in mind that even in a 100 years things can deviate far enough. Look at where our society has come in the last 300 years. You will find that I cannot set aside the Sola Scriptura principle here, especially when "sacred tradition of the apostles" put forth by Eriol directly contradicts the Bible, written down by the apostles and followed by the 1st century church. IMO, Barnabus and Justin Martyr were already deviating fromt he apostolic faith by 150 A.D, a mere 50 years after the death of John the Revelator. Apostasy doesn't know any limits in terms of the passing of time.

[Eriol]

No specific light, Thorin, only the light of reason, which you share. But how can the light of reason be useful if you won't look at the evidence?

The arrogance is with you, my friend. You are the one refusing oral testimony. You are the one accepting only one kind of evidence and rejecting all others. The Catholic Church claims it received Sacred Tradition from the Apostles, orally -- the burden of proof is on you, you have to show that the Church is lying. I can trust Her, just as I trust anyone else. If you tell me something, I don't begin by assuming you are a liar. I will only think that if I find EVIDENCE that you lied.

For me, the testimony of the Fathers is evidence. But you refuse it, with no reason at all for doing it. Who is being arrogant?

Of course apostasy and heresy are quick. It's not a matter of the time elapsed (protestants place special emphasis on this, as if 100 years made a heresy more likely to be spread than 10... I don't get it. A heresy takes only one minute to formulate).

The Sola Scriptura principle is not Scriptural, quite the contrary -- the Scripture says that the Church is the interpreter...

And of course you are right in saying that if "sacred tradition of the apostles" contradicts the Bible, something is wrong. But, of course, you'll have to SHOW that instead of simply saying it.

Show me a Catholic doctrine which is contradicted by the Bible, Thorin.

Remember what contradiction means, we have gone into that already.

[Malbeth]

If you find blatant support of such things as confession and forgiveness of a priest, veneration of saints and relics and other such traditions, then we must go further back

No, what you do have to look for, if you believe these doctrines are false is if, at the time those doctrines appeared, any controversy appeared regarding them, or whether all the Church as a whole accepted them with no questions asked as part of the teachings of the Apostles.

Since this is quite difficult to believe, you could only defend this position if the said doctrines are contradicted by the Bible. So, show me where is this contradiction (and yes, silence is not enough, unless you mean to say that the apostles never said anything that is not contained in the bible, and then you have to prove that).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Show me a Catholic doctrine which is contradicted by the Bible, Thorin......Remember what contradiction means, we have gone into that already. From Malbeth
Since this is quite difficult to believe, you could only defend this position if the said doctrines are contradicted by the Bible. So, show me where is this contradiction

Ah yes. The old chicken and the egg reasoning. Just as confusing now as it was before. :rolleyes:

Our meaning of contradiction are obviously different. When the truth is shown, what is wrong should become self-evident without pointing out the obvious but that sort of reasoning doesn't seem to work for you guys.

The Bible makes these things quite obvious:

1) Salvation can only come through the blood of Christ and the acceptance of His grace. Salvation by faith alone.
2) Only God/Christ can forgive sins. Anything else is blasphemy.
3) If we confess our sins to Him, He will forgive our sins. Period. Nothing else is needed
4) The commandments say not to make any graven image for the purpose of veneration
5) The Bible says that mans fate (either saved or lost) is sealed at their death. No second chances, no purging. Either first or second resurrection.

These were followed and promoted by Christ and His apostles. Anything to the contrary that takes its place is false and could not have been practiced by the early apostles. Just the mere validity of these facets of truth negate indulgences, confession for the purpose of priestly forgiveness, relics and veneration of them and purgatory. The Bible says that anyone who adds or takes away (I would also include replacing here) what is in the scriptures will have the last day plagues added onto them even more. TO you guys this doesn't seem like contradiction. We are admonished by St. Paul and the other apostles to use only the scriptures in determining right and wrong. Any other method is man-made or another gospel which is accursed in Paul's eyes.

If this isn't evidence enough, then there is nothing more that we can discuss. We obviously look at things from different viewpoints.

[Eriol]

Well, I don't have quotes here. This is the province of Malbeth. But:

1) We agree
2) Wrong -- Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles, quite clearly. No quotes, but Malbeth will find it.
3) Agreed
4) Catholics do not worship images
5) Show that the Bible says that, Thorin...

As you see, 2 of your "shocking contradictions" are Catholic doctrine, 1 is easily disproven (the missing quote is like "those whom you forgive sins, their sins shall be forgiven; if you don't, their sins will not be forgiven". Could not be plainer -- this is Jesus speaking to the Apostles), another is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.

Thorin, for an ex-Catholic you surely do not know a lot of Catholic doctrine. I don't blame you, though -- I was also raised a Catholic and only began to study this a few months ago. But it is amazing how... off-base are the ideas people have about the Church.

I find the mention that the Bible forbids adding or taking away especially interesting. Thorin, tell us about the Protestant and Catholic Bibles, and their differences. Tell us who did the taking away.

[Thorin]

Initial quote by Thorin
1) Salvation can only come through the blood of Christ and the acceptance of His grace. Salvation by faith alone.
2) Only God/Christ can forgive sins. Anything else is blasphemy.
3) If we confess our sins to Him, He will forgive our sins. Period. Nothing else is needed
4) The commandments say not to make any graven image for the purpose of veneration
5) The Bible says that mans fate (either saved or lost) is sealed at their death. No second chances, no purging. Either first or second resurrection.
Originally posted by Eriol
Well, I don't have quotes here. This is the province of Malbeth. But:

1) We agree
2) Wrong -- Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles, quite clearly. No quotes, but Malbeth will find it.
3) Agreed
4) Catholics do not worship images
5) Show that the Bible says that, Thorin...

1) Then what exactly is penance and indulgences for, pray tell?
2) Even if the disciples could forgive sins, there is no mention that this prive\ilege passed on to any successors but was strictly limited to those who walked and talked with Christ. They also were given the power of healing and even bringing people back from the dead. When has pope or priest ever done such a thing? Shouldn't it be common place with every representativeof Christ and successor of Peter? There is no biblical mention of the apostles forgiving anyone's sins even when they healed the people physically which was what Christ did to make the whole person whole again, physically and spiritually. The lack of any sort of controversy (which surely would have occured between Peter and Paul with the Pharisees considering the hoopla that circumcision caused) and the lack of biblical evidence of the kind is reason enough to see that the apostles didn't forgive sins. On the contrary, there is ample enough evidence that they always pointed everyone to Christ for the "confession and forgiveness of sins". If they forgave sins through Christ, there would be no need to point them to the Savior, which Paul did and promoted at every opportunity. They would be placing themselves in His place. They didn't do that.
3) See number one and question the role of priests other than that of counselors.
4) Praying to Mary and St.Christopher for protection and intervention is same as adoration. Only Christ is our mediator and the one we pray too.
5) I believe I have in the other threads. When you don't feel the Bible has all the answers and EVERYTHING no matter how blatant is up to interpretation, I can't blame you for your opinion. Anything that can't be done away with by "matter of interpretation" is explained by "sacred tradition". I can't argue with that mentality. But it is definitely true that what you believe and how you interpret things paints the rest of how one views things with the same brush.

The problem is that we are on different canvases.:D

[Eriol]

1 and 3) Penance and indulgences do not save anyone. They are bestowed (is this the correct verb? I don't know) after the sin is forgiven.

2) Whoa, I thought we could not interpret the Bible with inferences such as "the lack of controversy between..."

;)

Since you are willing to accept the lack of controversy as evidence, (thankfully), I am sure you will see that this arguments condones not only Apostolic tradition but Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Hell, etc.

That they forgave sins is explicit in the Bible, with that quote I mentioned (but did not post, sorry :(). I don't think you can reason against the Bible with word plays such as "IF they forgave sins through Christ...". Fact is, they did.

Unless you are willing to find some mistakes in the Bible.

4) I'm sorry if you think that praying for intercession is the same as adoration. Catholics don't think as you do. It is a matter of interpretation, again... and the first Church is on our side, again (else why would they even build churches over the burial sites of their saints??)

"Only Christ is our mediator". Ok, we agree with that. Does it mean that we should not ask other people to pray for us? This will be a shock at the Prayer Thread...

And the same goes to (5). Your interpretation against that of the First Church.

Are you evading that tiny little question about adding and taking away from the Bible, Thorin?

:)

EDIT: Found the quote on google. John 20:21 - 23, NKJV:

So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Whoa, I thought we could not interpret the Bible with inferences such as "the lack of controversy between..."Since you are willing to accept the lack of controversy as evidence, (thankfully), I am sure you will see that this arguments condones not only Apostolic tradition but Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Hell, etc.

When you are mentioning doctrinal issues that would be as foreign to the Pharisees and Jews such as indulgences, purgatory etc., even had Paul remotely talked about them, never mind explicitly wrote them down (which he obviously did not) you can guarantee that there would have been controversy. The Jews nearly crucified Paul over circumcision for crying out loud and Paul writes about it extensively. The fact that there was silence on this matter and Paul doesn't even ADDRESS it for Pete's sake tells you that it wasn't an issue at all because it was foreign to the early church. So, yes, the silence issue on the Pharisees and Jewish leaders is a glaring support of the truth. You cannot take this same principle to apply to something that MIGHT have been said but not written down and assumed as truth by silence.Originally posted by Eriol
That they forgave sins is explicit in the Bible, with that quote I mentioned (but did not post, sorry :(). I don't think you can reason against the Bible with word plays such as "IF they forgave sins through Christ...". Fact is, they did.

You're assuming that when it says, :forgiving sins" you are talking about intercessory forgiveness like Christ did for those on this earth and forgiving of sins directly against God. Were this true, we would not need to go directly to Christ. The Bible makes it clear that we can approach the throne of grace without an intercessor (Acts 20:21; 1 John 1:9) and the removal and forgiveness of sin comes through only the merits of Christ and His direct mediation (1 John 2:1). You seem to ignore the second part, "and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained"

Christ gave the disciples the leadership of the church to govern over the dos and don'ts, the wrongs and the rights that were committed. They governed and cared for the spiritual needs of the people, encouraging them to correct rights and evils and get right with God and man. God has already pardoned and accepted the repentant one (see Luke 15:1-7). When evidence of genuine repentance is lacking, the charges brought against an erring member are to be "retained". Heaven will recognize the decision of the church, for no man can be right with God when he is willfully at odds with his fellow men. He who despises the counsel of God's appointed representatives on earth cannot expect to enjoy God's favor.
Unless you are willing to find some mistakes in the Bible.
As I said before, there are only mistakes when one takes ONE verse and bases a whole theology on it and ignores the other evidence saying contrary. It only happens when one doesn't allow the Bible to explain itself through reason and context like the Bible says to interpret it. Originally posted by Eriol
Are you evading that tiny little question about adding and taking away from the Bible, Thorin?
I am not fully aware of what you are implying. Can you give some examples? Please keep in mind that not all Protestants believe the same way either, and some Protestants feel that other Protestants are not following the Sola Scriptura principle either.

[Eriol]

hmm... Thorin, I'm sorry, but I did not understand most of your last post -- no doubt due to language differences.

:eek: :confused:

You're assuming that when it says, :forgiving sins" you are talking about intercessory forgiveness like Christ did for those on this earth and forgiving of sins directly against God. Were this true, we would not need to go directly to Christ. The Bible makes it clear that we can approach the throne of grace without an intercessor (Acts 20:21; 1 John 1:9) and the removal and forgiveness of sin comes through only the merits of Christ and His direct mediation (1 John 2:1). You seem to ignore the second part, "and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained"

Christ gave the disciples the leadership of the church to govern over the dos and don'ts, the wrongs and the rights that were committed. They governed and cared for the spiritual needs of the people, encouraging them to correct rights and evils and get right with God and man. God has already pardoned and accepted the repentant one (see Luke 15:1-7). When evidence of genuine repentance is lacking, the charges brought against an erring member are to be "retained". Heaven will recognize the decision of the church, for no man can be right with God when he is willfully at odds with his fellow men. He who despises the counsel of God's appointed representatives on earth cannot expect to enjoy God's favor.

I really am interpreting this as if you agree with me! I must be wrong (no irony here, I really think I'm having language problems). For instance, you asked me whether the apostles could forgive sins; I said they could, and gave you a quote; and then you say that I am forgetting the second part, in conjunction with the contention that we CAN approach the Throne of Grace without an intercessor (something which no Catholic would ever argue with).

?

It really sounds very Catholic. The church has authority; he who despises the counsel of God's representatives... etc.

What is your point? That the Church has the authority to forgive sins? I thought that was my point.

As for the adding and taking away, I mean the edition and taking away of some books which were accepted by the First Councils as canonical. Some groups did that, right?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
I really am interpreting this as if you agree with me! I must be wrong (no irony here, I really think I'm having language problems). For instance, you asked me whether the apostles could forgive sins; I said they could, and gave you a quote; and then you say that I am forgetting the second part, in conjunction with the contention that we CAN approach the Throne of Grace without an intercessor (something which no Catholic would ever argue with).

It really sounds very Catholic. The church has authority; he who despises the counsel of God's representatives... etc.

What is your point? That the Church has the authority to forgive sins? I thought that was my point.

As for the adding and taking away, I mean the edition and taking away of some books which were accepted by the First Councils as canonical. Some groups did that, right?

Being in charge of the church to make sure things are running smoothly and people are held responsible for their (un)Christian behavior is much different then someone coming up saying, "Father forgive me. I lusted after a woman." "Your sins are forgiven. Go say three Hail Marys." Unless what you are saying is that the priest is doing nothing more then confirming Christ's forgiveness. If that is the case, then confession is not necessary and the church has been misleading its people for over a thousand years. The general concensus has always been (at least around the Catholics I've known and grown up with) that the priest is the one who forgives your sins and until you confess, you are not forgiven.

As far as I know, the church has always taken this stance. One Catholic writer even went as far to say that even Christ Himself could not forgive someone until the priest or Pope did so first, having that much power as the Vicar of Christ on earth (I am not making this up). Perhaps the church has changed its stance on this now, but in the MA, the church and the priests were everything to the people. Hence the reason why excommunication was a direct link to hell. Without the church, there was no confession and no forgiveness of sins. The Reformation came to dispel such an unbibilical myth and show that the people could go straight to Christ. Had this not been the case, and the people knew they didn't need a priest to have their sins forgiven, there wouldn't have been any complaints from the top Catholic scholars who protested this sarcedotal ball and chain to the salvation of the people and felt it necessary to start a Reformation.

Are you speaking about the Apocrypha? As far as I know, the Council of Carthage never recognized it as part of the canon due to the errors and
contradictions to the rest of the Christian accepted scriptures of the OT. Neither the pseudipigrapha. It wasn't quoted from or recognized by the NT believers except as Jewish historical writings. This could be chalked up to...what was it?..."sacred tradition?" ;) Accepting the Apocrypha as direct inspiration like the scriptures to the NT and early church would be like todays church canonizing the writings of Augustine and Aquinas.

[Eriol]

No, I'm not speaking about the Apocrypha -- I'm speaking about books accepted as canonical.

And minor editing of other books, such as "we are justified by faith alone".

(Editing in Bold)

As for forgiveness of sins, the priest forgives the sins as the representative of Christ in the Earth, having received this power by unbroken direct transmission (the laying of hands) from the Apostles.

He forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ (of course).

You make it sound as if Excommunication is a caprice of the Popes, or a political weapon. Excommunication means expulsion from the Church. If the guy is expelled from the Church, why should he look for a priest for forgiveness? We are not supposed to judge, so I wouldn't say he is doomed to Hell.

And, also quite obviously, Excommunication is not something that just any old Joe can get. You have to really attack the faith or the Church to merit Excommunication. And if you are attacking the faith or the Church, well then I suppose you are better off away from the Church.

Confession. I'm not too learned about this, since the doctrine seemed obvious to me from the beginning and I never really looked it up, but I'll give you a guess and when that Malbeth shows up he can confirm it or not :D

The purpose of penance is NOT to have your sins forgiven -- it is not a trade with God. Penance takes place AFTER the sins are forgiven, as a result of the sinner's sincere wish to restore his union with God, which was hurt by the sin. Whether it is prayer, pilgrimage, or such, it is done by the sinner gladly, since it is an atonement for his sin. Think of it as a sacrifice, just as Christ is the sacrificial Lamb.

In other words, it is a voluntary offer to God.

The role of the priest in determining the penance is to provide a just (proportional) sacrifice. It is NOT a command of the priest, and he can't withdraw his forgiveness if the sinner refuses -- but the sinner ought to wish it sincerely, anyway. He can even atone in a different way, after consulting with the priest. (changing prayer for pilgrimage, for instance -- or for donation to the Church, which is the theoretical basis for indulgences. A sound basis, may I add. I don't doubt it was abused, but the theory is fine -- an indulgence would be an atonement, AFTER the sins are forgiven... )

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
No, I'm not speaking about the Apocrypha -- I'm speaking about books accepted as canonical.

And minor editing of other books, such as "we are justified by faith alone".

You're going to have to elaborate on that, Eriol. I ain't getting you. And as for the justfied by faith alone, the problem is not that the law isn't important, but that only the grace and blood of Christ can save us. Observing the law and doing good works is a manisfestation of that new nature. We don't keep the law TO BE saved, but because we ARE saved. One's nature and one's way of living will determine if they truly are God's or not. Most Protestants don't add or take away anything from the Bible. They misinterpret a heck of a lot, however (like Hell). Unlike Catholics, however, one can reason with them and show them their error based on the scriptures because they believe in Sola Scriptura. A Catholic is harder to convince (as shown by you and your brother).Originally posted by Eriol
As for forgiveness of sins, the priest forgives the sins as the representative of Christ in the Earth, having received this power by unbroken direct transmission (the laying of hands) from the Apostles.He forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ (of course).
And I still say this: even if the apostles were given that breath, it is highly unlikely that the successors of the apostles had the same power. Explain how debauched and deviant Popes such as Benedict IX and John XXIII had the power to raise the dead and heal the sick, or even had the right to forgive sins like the apostles did? Why aren't popes and priests doing all that now? If they can forgive sins like the apostles, surely they can heal and raise the dead too. Don't assume that everything the apostles had passes on. They walked and were directly touched by Christ. That has to count for something different then those that come after. You still haven't answered those questions.

Originally posted by Eriol
You make it sound as if Excommunication is a caprice of the Popes, or a political weapon. Excommunication means expulsion from the Church. If the guy is expelled from the Church, why should he look for a priest for forgiveness? We are not supposed to judge, so I wouldn't say he is doomed to Hell....And, also quite obviously, Excommunication is not something that just any old Joe can get. You have to really attack the faith or the Church to merit Excommunication. And if you are attacking the faith or the Church, well then I suppose you are better off away from the Church.Not according to the church dictum: "Without the Church there is no salvation." You can't deny this was THE threatening tool in the Middle Ages and there are still many staunch Catholics who believe this. Why not? If it isn't a big deal whether we are excommunicated, why did the church enforce this? As I said before, whether the church has changed its tune, doesn't negate that this was the way it was in the Middle Ages.Originally posted by Eriol
The purpose of penance is NOT to have your sins forgiven -- it is not a trade with God. Penance takes place AFTER the sins are forgiven, as a result of the sinner's sincere wish to restore his union with God, which was hurt by the sin. Whether it is prayer, pilgrimage, or such, it is done by the sinner gladly, since it is an atonement for his sin. Think of it as a sacrifice, just as Christ is the sacrificial Lamb...In other words, it is a voluntary offer to God....A sound basis, may I add. I don't doubt it was abused, but the theory is fine -- an indulgence would be an atonement, AFTER the sins are forgiven... ) Again, I say: Whether the church looks on indulgences as a "love offering" doesn't mean that is the way the Dark Ages church looked at it. What did Tetzel say? "When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs"? Indulgences were bought on their own merits to dispense salvation. Some indulgences were told to be so powerful that they would forgive sins that weren't even committed yet. Please don't sweep your past under the rug to pass that sort of financial bilking off as love offerings. That wasn't how it was. It was payment for sins. Even Luther, still a staunch Catholic (who still did confessions even) saw that.Originally posted by Eriol The role of the priest in determining the penance is to provide a just (proportional) sacrifice. It is NOT a command of the priest, and he can't withdraw his forgiveness if the sinner refuses -- but the sinner ought to wish it sincerely, anyway. He can even atone in a different way, after consulting with the priest. (changing prayer for pilgrimage, for instance -- or for donation to the Church, which is the theoretical basis for indulgences.
"Penance" implies an act of contrition for ones sins. In other words, there is still some guilt there that needs to be purged away by a good work. The Bible says that there is "now no condemnation under the law". His forgiveness covers all and our slate is wiped clean. There is no "sacrifice" needed but a surrendered heart that Christ can mold and change into His image. Again, it is just more, "For this, you gotta do that". Our desire is not to "buy" God's acceptance by vain acts here and there (something God viewed with disdain throughout the scripture) but to "go and sin no more".

[Eriol]

I don't deny any of the Popes' sins, I only fail to see how can their sins falsify the Church's doctrine.

And the point of "we are justified by faith alone" is not the doctrinal issue -- it is the immense GALL of adding a word to Scripture because of a doctrinal harangue. The phrase is "we are justified by faith", the word "alone" was added by protestants.

No matter what doctrine is involved, I find it very interesting that people who believe in Sola Scripture go about editing some books -- not to speak of throwing them away.

What about the "epistle of straw", James? Sola Scriptura, indeed...

Catholics, my friend Thorin, are a bit more reverent of their Scriptures, and they simply don't touch them -- they keep them as received, without adding or taking away. As their doctrines, by the way. No matter what sins Catholics committed, their doctrines are the same, since the Apostles. I'm sorry if you disapprove of them, but that's how it is. (You might as well look for yourself before dismissing it -- just my regular plug ;) ).

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps Catholics are harder to convince because they're right? I'm not making a joke. There is a great difficulty for you to accept our statements, while we accept yours quite readily. Why is that?

An example is your last post. About penance, indulgence, etc., I think I could not be clearer in stating that the priest forgives the sins in the name of Christ, and that penance is something that takes place after the sins are forgiven, and that it is a voluntary atonement. Note the word voluntary.

Yet, you come back stating -- again -- what we all agree on:

His forgiveness covers all and our slate is wiped clean

You refute one Catholic doctrine with another... while refusing to see what I was really saying. Did I say that penances are needed to "clean our slate"? No, I said the exact opposite, in capital letters by the way. Did I say that penance is "buying God's acceptance?" No, I said the exact opposite. But you keep poking at the strawmen.

Are you sure, Thorin, that Catholics aren't hard to convince precisely because we are right?

I can only hope that the Holy Spirit, invoked by us on the Hell thread, can shed some light on us in this thread.

God bless...

[Malbeth]

Oh well, so much for treating one topic at a time...

From the beginning since my last post:

We are admonished by St. Paul and the other apostles to use only the scriptures in determining right and wrong.

No, we're not. "The Church is the pillar of truth". Show me the verses that say that we should use only the scriptures.


1) Salvation can only come through the blood of Christ and the acceptance of His grace. Salvation by faith alone.
2) Only God/Christ can forgive sins. Anything else is blasphemy.
3) If we confess our sins to Him, He will forgive our sins. Period. Nothing else is needed
4) The commandments say not to make any graven image for the purpose of veneration
5) The Bible says that mans fate (either saved or lost) is sealed at their death. No second chances, no purging. Either first or second resurrection.

1- Agreed
2- Agreed with reservations. Christ did gave the apostles authority to forgive sins in his name. This is what the priest nowaday says (or something like it) "I forgive you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". So, the priest, as alter christus forgives us our sins.
3-Agreed, again with reservations. You have to have perfect contriction (i.e being really sorry for having offended such a loving God). Catholics, who believe that Christ did institute confessions,
tell their sins to the priest after they're forgiven by God, but we are forgiven as soon as we make an act of perfect contrition.
4- We not only don't worship images, but we know that this commandment refers to the making of idols to be worshipped, since God commanded Moses to make a bronze snake to heall the Hebrews bitten by snakes. Was God contradicting his own commandment?
5- Agreed, regarding no second chances. If you go to purgatory, you're already destined to Heaven. Since our disagreement about what happens at death goes a lot deeper than whether there is a purgatory or not, I'm not sure we can profitably discuss purgatory here. Still, you do have to show that the Bible says that there is no purging.

1) Then what exactly is penance and indulgences for, pray tell?
2) Even if the disciples could forgive sins, there is no mention that this prive\ilege passed on to any successors but was strictly limited to those who walked and talked with Christ. They also were given the power of healing and even bringing people back from the dead. When has pope or priest ever done such a thing? Shouldn't it be common place with every representativeof Christ and successor of Peter? There is no biblical mention of the apostles forgiving anyone's sins even when they healed the people physically which was what Christ did to make the whole person whole again, physically and spiritually. The lack of any sort of controversy (which surely would have occured between Peter and Paul with the Pharisees considering the hoopla that circumcision caused) and the lack of biblical evidence of the kind is reason enough to see that the apostles didn't forgive sins. On the contrary, there is ample enough evidence that they always pointed everyone to Christ for the "confession and forgiveness of sins". If they forgave sins through Christ, there would be no need to point them to the Savior, which Paul did and promoted at every opportunity. They would be placing themselves in His place. They didn't do that.
3) See number one and question the role of priests other than that of counselors.
4) Praying to Mary and St.Christopher for protection and intervention is same as adoration. Only Christ is our mediator and the one we pray too.
5) I believe I have in the other threads. When you don't feel the Bible has all the answers and EVERYTHING no matter how blatant is up to interpretation, I can't blame you for your opinion. Anything that can't be done away with by "matter of interpretation" is explained by "sacred tradition". I can't argue with that mentality. But it is definitely true that what you believe and how you interpret things paints the rest of how one views things with the same brush.

1 and 3- I'll adress that later in the post
2- We know from the Bible that the disciples chose someone to be a new apostle, so we know that apostolic sucession is scriptural. So, it is you that have to prove that forgiving sins could not be passed on to other apostolic sucessors.
4-No, it is not the same as adoration. It is the same as asking a good friend to pray for you. Protestants do that, don't they?
5-And I believe you don't :)

When you are mentioning doctrinal issues that would be as foreign to the Pharisees and Jews such as indulgences, purgatory etc

Were these concepts so foreign? I know you do not accept the deutero-canonical books as part of the canon (we'll discuss this later), but Maccabees (sp?) was a part of the Septuagint, the Bible used at that time, and at 2 Macc. 12:41-45 we have indulgences in behalf of dead people! So, whether these concepts were accepted or not, they're certainly not foreign. Perhaps there was silence because everyone accepted it...

As for the rest of this post, as Eriol said, it is hard to understand. Does the Church's decision to "retain" a sin when there is evidence that repentance was not sincere legitimate. If yes, the Church has the authority to declare whether someone's sins are forgiven or not. If no, then I did not understand what you said.


As far as I know, the church has always taken this stance. One Catholic writer even went as far to say that even Christ Himself could not forgive someone until the priest or Pope did so first, having that much power as the Vicar of Christ on earth (I am not making this up).

But I think the Catholic writer was making this up. The sins are forgiven the moment there is an act of perfect contrition. To Catholics, when you're perfectly contricted, you tell your sins to a priest, who will determine whether you really regret your sins or not and then you have the authority of the Church affirming that your sins are forgiven (which is quite a relief, and something Dr. Luther, being too scrupulous, did not believe, thinking his sins were not forgiven after confession, which led to the Reformation).

Are you speaking about the Apocrypha? As far as I know, the Council of Carthage never recognized it as part of the canon due to the errors and
contradictions to the rest of the Christian accepted scriptures of the OT.

We have to make some definitions here... there are surviving jewish writings rejected by both Protestants and Catholics as non-canonical; let us call them the OT Apocrypha. There are also early Christian writings rejected by both Protestants and Catholics as non-canonical; let us call them the NT Apocrypha. And there are jewish writings accepted by Catholics as canonical but rejected by Protestants; let us call them the Deutero-canonical. Which group are you talking about?

I'll give you a guess and when that Malbeth shows up he can confirm it or not

Sorry Eriol, not sure either. I think you're required to make the penance, but not as forgiveness of the sin. Sin means separation from God, and that has been forgiven, so you're no longer separated from God. However, the sin has made a "mark" in your personality that, if left unfought, could lead you to sin again. So, the priest tells you to make a penance in order to erase this "mark" (if you die with this mark in you, it will still have to be cleaned out in purgatory, since only the perfect can stand in the presence of God).

[Malbeth]

Continued from the last post...


And as for the justified by faith alone, the problem is not that the law isn't important, but that only the grace and blood of Christ can save us. Observing the law and doing good works is a manisfestation of that new nature. We don't keep the law TO BE saved, but because we ARE saved.

Amen, brother! Couldn't agree more. Actually that's in effect what the Pope and the Lutheran bishops said in the 80s, that this controversy was largely over semantics (Protestants were using the word "faith" differently from the Catholics). Amazing, isn't it? The most controversial point, at the time of the Reformation at least, was over semantics! Let's try not to make the same mistake here...

If they can forgive sins like the apostles, surely they can heal and raise the dead too. Don't assume that everything the apostles had passes on.

You're the one assuming nothing the apostles had passed on. Surely, some things, important for the administration and "salvation efficacy" of the Church passed on, while other, being personal Charisms depending on holiness, did not.

And I still say this: even if the apostles were given that breath, it is highly unlikely that the successors of the apostles had the same power

I think this shows a relutance to accept that the apostles were given that breath. Were they or were they not given it? Whether the sucessors had the same power or not is something else to discuss, but I don't see any reason why they would not.

Not according to the church dictum: "Without the Church there is no salvation." You can't deny this was THE threatening tool in the Middle Ages and there are still many staunch Catholics who believe this. Why not? If it isn't a big deal whether we are excommunicated, why did the church enforce this? As I said before, whether the church has changed its tune, doesn't negate that this was the way it was in the Middle Ages.

This does not mean that non-catholics are not saved, just as saying that Christ is the only way does not mean that someone who has never heard of Christ is damned. I can show you a lot of quotes of early Catholic philosophers saying they believed some Greek philosophers were saved, and they were neither Christians nor Catholics. The Church excomunnicates those who attack her or defy Her teachings. If someone thinks the Catholic Church is wrong in faith or morals, why should he wish to remain a Catholic (by the way this is something I ask some of my "catholic" friends who disagree with what the Church teaches, usually in sexual matters)?

However, the Church does have the Sacraments, which are aids to salvation, and to be excomunnicated is to be denied access to the Sacraments. But I don't think that excommunication was so threatening. Let's imagine a Catholic philosopher, who, unwittingly, teaches a false doctrine. His doctrines are examined and condemned, and the Church says that whoever teaches this doctrine is to be excommunicated. The philosopher now has two choices; 1-Believing the Church to be the ultimate judge in matter of faith and morals, to reject his own doctrine, and to thank the church for teaching him the error of his ways; 2- Believing himself to be the ultimate judge of faith and morals, to reject what the Church has said and continue to believe and teach his doctrine. Then, of course, he can be a good and sincere man, but he's no longer a Catholic (and if he always believed he was the ultimate judge of faith, I think it can be said that he never was a Catholic, even though he was not formally excomunicated).

Again, I say: Whether the church looks on indulgences as a "love offering" doesn't mean that is the way the Dark Ages church looked at it. What did Tetzel say? "When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs"? Indulgences were bought on their own merits to dispense salvation. Some indulgences were told to be so powerful that they would forgive sins that weren't even committed yet. Please don't sweep your past under the rug to pass that sort of financial bilking off as love offerings. That wasn't how it was. It was payment for sins. Even Luther, still a staunch Catholic (who still did confessions even) saw that.

And this was one of the corrupt practices (not doctrines) that needed to be cast out by a reform, as a lot of Catholic writers pointed out at that time (I think that St. Thomas More, a martyr of the Church, was one of them). What you have to prove here is not that churchmen did that, but that the Church officially taught that indulgence could buy you Heaven, or to have your sins forgiven before you commited them. Try to find this teaching in the church councils, approved by the Pope. If you do, you will convince me, and I'll become a Protestant (or perhaps an agnostic again, since I think there are so many holes in the Protestant position... perhaps I could become an Eastern Orthodox).

By the way, do you know the joke about the thief who approached Tetzel and asked him how much it cost to forgive all future sins? Tetzel stipulated the price, the thief bargained it down, paid it, and then stole the money back :D (I once enacted this joke in a school play...)


"Penance" implies an act of contrition for ones sins. In other words, there is still some guilt there that needs to be purged away by a good work. The Bible says that there is "now no condemnation under the law". His forgiveness covers all and our slate is wiped clean. There is no "sacrifice" needed but a surrendered heart that Christ can mold and change into His image. Again, it is just more, "For this, you gotta do that". Our desire is not to "buy" God's acceptance by vain acts here and there (something God viewed with disdain throughout the scripture) but to "go and sin no more".

I think the problem in this point is the different conception Protestants and Catholics have regarding what Salvation entails. To Catholics, to be saved is to be made perfect through God's grace, so we can stand in His presence. This "perfecting" process requires our free will, and can be done either here or in purgatory. Protestants seem to disregard this perfecting process, and say that our imperfections are covered by Christ, and God, in a "juridical fiction" disregards them and sees only Jesus, who is perfect. Protestants therefore tend to say "Grace supplants Nature", while a famous Catholic phrase says "Grace perfects Nature".

Observe that in the Catholic position our sins are also forgiven at once as soon as we repent them, but we believe God is not yet done with His masterpieces. He does not want us to just avoid sin, but to become perfect, to imitate Christ (and the Saints, who so well imitated Him). When we compare ourselves to the great Saints, we see how far we are from what God wants to make of us.

Phew, it took me about 2:30 hours to write this up. Are you sure you don't want to accept my suggestion of going one doctrine at a time. I would suggest Sola Scriptura. Thorin, could you make your case for Sola Scriptura, and then Eriol and I will try to show you why we think Sola Scriptura is wrong? If you can do that without bringing in discussions of Catholic doctrine that would just cloud the issue, it will be greatly appreciated.

I'm suggesting to discuss this doctrine first because it is absolutely fundamental. We have to decide what is the standard of Christian faith before we can decide whether any doctrine is in agreement with it or not. I think our discussion, up to this time, has not been very productive (but I have found out that you think Catholics believe things that the Church has actually never taught) You can pick the next topic if you want to.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Malbeth
Agreed, again with reservations. You have to have perfect contriction (i.e being really sorry for having offended such a loving God). Catholics, who believe that Christ did institute confessions,
tell their sins to the priest after they're forgiven by God, but we are forgiven as soon as we make an act of perfect contrition.

And this is where you differ from the Bible. When we come to Christ we surrender all. Nothing we can do or will do will earn that forgiveness. It is unconditional. Hence, the forgiveness of man can only be credited to God, not from anything of man's doing. We don't have to do anything to earn that forgiveness. That is where the Catholic church errs. Does that mean that we ignore good works just because we are forgiven by grace? No. Paul says, "By no means! We establish the law!" However, our good works have nothing to do with the forgiving process.Originally posted by Malbeth
Agreed, regarding no second chances. If you go to purgatory, you're already destined to Heaven. Since our disagreement about what happens at death goes a lot deeper than whether there is a purgatory or not, I'm not sure we can profitably discuss purgatory here. Still, you do have to show that the Bible says that there is no purging.....So, the priest tells you to make a penance in order to erase this "mark" (if you die with this mark in you, it will still have to be cleaned out in purgatory, since only the perfect can stand in the presence of God).
Why should there be "purging"? That means that Christ's forgiveness is not sufficient. What about those "unconfessed" sins? If we are worried about that one little sin sending us to hell, we are all doomed. Christ is always working in us to perfect us. He is concerned about relationships, not dos and don'ts. Yes, they are important. But are you honestly telling me that if I am saved in the Lord, have asked Him to forgive my sins, then commit a little one and die, that I have to go through purgatory first to have that sin purged? What that becomes is salvation by our deeds, not by the all encompassing grace of Christ. What exactly is this purging? A punishing fire to squelch out our sinfulness? We must be "punished" for our sins despite our saving relationship with God? Kind of legalistic, isn't it?

By Eriol
Catholics, my friend Thorin, are a bit more reverent of their Scriptures, and they simply don't touch them -- they keep them as received, without adding or taking away. As their doctrines, by the way. No matter what sins Catholics committed, their doctrines are the same, since the Apostles.


Really? Can you explain why the Catholic church changed the Ten Commandments by eliminating the second and dividing the 10th into two without any authority other then their claimed power from on High to do such a thing? Can you also explain why the post apostolic church changed the 4th commandment of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday without any biblical authority or apostolic sanction? (And if you try to use the example of Paul, you are treading on extremely thin ice of biblical interpretation, but you can go ahead and try ;) )

[Eriol]

Wow... I think we need a definition of Catholic doctrine before any further discussion, Malbeth is right. Without establishing what is Catholic and what is not, we are on quicksand. (Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism is easily defined, we just have to ask Rome).

The Church changed the commandments?

I guess the next thing you will tell me is that Catholic seminars have special classes for paedophiles...

Thorin, you really should get some information before making these claims. Or else you must be joking :).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
The Church changed the commandments?
I guess the next thing you will tell me is that Catholic seminars have special classes for pedophiles...

Thorin, you really should get some information before making these claims. Or else you must be joking :).

No, but the forced celibacy thing didn't help anything in that regard, did it? Another man made tradition. And if you try to use Paul's example and words to justify such a requirement of the clergy (requirement, not an option or counsel), it is more treading on thin ice.

Please explain to me why when I look at Exodus 20, I see different commandments then when I look in a Catholic Bible or see the 10 commandments as Catholics display them with the 2nd commandment removed and the 10th split into two. I look in any other Protestant publication or Bible and I see the good old 10 commandments the way they are supposed to be. Another "sacred tradition" that the apostles did and just forgot to mention it in the scriptures?

[Eriol]

Wow, you are serious.

I guess you got your "Catholic bible" from the Union of Paedophile churchmen of America :D.

Here is the pertinent part of Exodus 20, from the USCCB site (you know what that is, right? U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I think it is safe to say it is a Catholic reference.):

Then God delivered all these commandments:
2
"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3
You shall not have other gods besides me.
4
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5
2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6
but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7
"You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
8
"Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.
9
Six days you may labor and do all your work,
10
but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you.
11
In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12
"Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
13
"You shall not kill.
14
"You shall not commit adultery.
15
"You shall not steal.
16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."
18
When the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the trumpet blast and the mountain smoking, they all feared and trembled. So they took up a position much farther away
19
and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we shall die."
20
Moses answered the people, "Do not be afraid, for God has come to you only to test you and put his fear upon you, lest you should sin."


If you don't believe it, here's the link:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm

Really Thorin, you should try to find out what is Catholic doctrine before bashing it. It is not so hard, as I said -- just ask Rome.

[Malbeth]

Thorin, do you agree to begin at the fundamentals or will you be just firing around the corners? Can you defend Sola Scriptura or not? As I said yesterday, I lost two and a half hours just to answer all your attacks, and it's not a lot of fun. Still, since today's activity was slow, I will answer the things you said today, but please do tell me if you intend to begin at the beginning.

No, but the forced celibacy thing didn't help anything in that regard, did it? Another man made tradition.

Do you really believe that those sickos who attacked children only did so because they're not allowed to marry? C'mon... as if no married or single man was ever a pedophile...

As for it being a man-made tradition, you're absolutely right. It is a matter of church discipline, like fasting at required times (which can be changed at will by the Church), not of doctrine or morals (which cannot change and have not changed). Still, it is a discipline that has been shown to be very efficient (as Paul said it would be). As to whether it is forced celibacy... no one is forced to be a priest, so...

Regarding the 10 commandments... it is not how you number them, but whether you obey all of them. You realize, of course, that we have no such numbering in the Bible, the catholic numbering being compiled by Augustine, the Orthodox and reformed numbering compiled by Greek Fathers. The numbering itself is a tradition (small "t"), and you criticize us for not following your tradition! Just to show that Catholics, despite lumping together what you call the First and Second Commandments, accept both of them, here is what the Catechism says about this commandments:

CHAPTER ONE
YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND
2083 Jesus summed up man's duties toward God in this saying: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."[1] This immediately echoes the solemn call: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD."[2]
God has loved us first. The love of the One God is recalled in the first of the "ten words." The commandments then make explicit the response of love that man is called to give to his God.

ARTICLE 1 - THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.[3]
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."[4]

So, Catholics do accept the whole of the 10 commandments, however you choose to number them, and this is shown to be as yet another red herring.

Hence, the forgiveness of man can only be credited to God, not from anything of man's doing. We don't have to do anything to earn that forgiveness.

Not even repent of the sins? Of course we do not earn the forgiveness, but we have to accept it and for that we have to repent our sins, realizing how much we have offended the God of Love by your transgression. This is a logically necessary part of forgiveness, realizing that you're in the wrong and asking for the forgiveness. And I just remembered there's still another condition... we must forgive those who trespass against us (unless you want to revoke the Lord's Prayer)

However, our good works have nothing to do with the forgiving process.

And where did I state it otherwise? The good work, the penance, happens after you're forgiven, not as a part of the process of being forgiven. To be forgiven you do need to forgive others, though.

As for Purgatory... do you believe that 1- Only the perfect can stand in the presence of God? ; 2- We're not perfect yet and are not perfect on the day we die? From these two points alone, purgatory follows, there has to be a cleansing process whereby we are made perfect (through God's grace naturally).

Finishing up, I'd just like to ask you one more time to begin at the fundamentals... all the talking we've been having up to now has been idle and vain, and will remain so until we begin by determining what is the standard of truth for the Christian faith, the Bible or the Bible+Sacred Tradition.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Malbeth
Do you really believe that those sickos who attacked children only did so because they're not allowed to marry? C'mon... as if no married or single man was ever a pedophile...
No, but there are alot of priests who long to serve their God and also have a family but they are torn with sexual frustration in all areas because their church says they can't do both. Why not? Paul gave council. He didn't restrict.


Originally posted by Malbeth
Regarding the 10 commandments... it is not how you number them, but whether you obey all of them. You realize, of course, that we have no such numbering in the Bible, the catholic numbering being compiled by Augustine, the Orthodox and reformed numbering compiled by Greek Fathers. The numbering itself is a tradition (small "t"), and you criticize us for not following your tradition! Just to show that Catholics, despite lumping together what you call the First and Second Commandments, accept both of them...So, Catholics do accept the whole of the 10 commandments, however you choose to number them, and this is shown to be as yet another red herring.
There is no "numbering" involved with your set of commandments. The Bible makes it plain which is the first and which is the second. From what you've posted, the first contains both of them and tenth is split. "Well, hey! As long as there's still ten of 'em, who cares!!" The problem is that the Church seemed fit to alter them to begin with. And the Catholicism I was brought up with blatantly showed them numbered with the second one missing. Any tampering with God's holy law is blatant blasphemy. God's finger wasn't enough that the church felt it had the power to restructure them.
Originally posted by Malbeth
Originally by Thorin:
However, our good works have nothing to do with the forgiving process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ And where did I state it otherwise? The good work, the penance, happens after you're forgiven, not as a part of the process of being forgiven. To be forgiven you do need to forgive others, though.
posted by Malbeth
but we are forgiven as soon as we make an act of perfect contrition.To you this act is what you'd classify as penance. In the Bible to get forgiveness, we need ask with a right heart. Originally posted by Malbeth
Finishing up, I'd just like to ask you one more time to begin at the fundamentals... all the talking we've been having up to now has been idle and vain, and will remain so until we begin by determining what is the standard of truth for the Christian faith, the Bible or the Bible+Sacred Tradition.
Why bother? None of us can seem to prove that the other is the only standard to judge spiritual matters by. Church tradition wouldn't exist without the spring board of the scriptures. If it didn't it is nothing more than man made traditions and therefore is not imperative to follow in doctrinal issues. If it ain't biblical, why follow it? "Thy Word is truth" The embodiment of Christ is in the Word of God. Paul knew that we didn't need anything else. "Let him who brings another gospel be accursed".

Who and when determined this sacred tradition? Why should I believe that what wasn't even recorded in the scriptures was passed on to the kiddies by the fireside as a side by side companion to the Bible for the road map of life? All that we need is in the Bible. I don't think that issues like purgatory, indulgences, penance and required priestly celibacy would have been ignored by the apostles (especially Paul who was constantly in controversy over doctrines that differed with the Jews) and not written down when things like circumcision, doing away with Jewish sacrifices, admonishing the pagans about their rituals and foolish beliefs, the forgiveness of Christ, the problems and benefits of the Law etc, etc.... are written about in detail. "Hey, pagan Corinthians! You don't need to serve this God or deny your body or don't eat this stuff or that or follow the law to be saved....but you do have to pay indulgences, say a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers, be celibate if you're going to serve God and do a few acts of contrition to get back in favor with God". Sounds like substituting more ritual for ritual.

No, I believe that it is nothing more than honest church leaders who felt there were gaps and explanations needed and tried to fill those gaps with what they probably felt was inspired being that they thought only they had the truth and power directly from God (and I believe at one point they did, but they fell away, hence the Reformation). IMO, it is still all man made traditions that hold no sway over the Scriptures. Follow them as council or just because it is profitable to follow them. But don't hold them on the same par as the scriptures because they are not.

[Eriol]

I notice you failed to withdraw your accusation that Catholicism tampered with the Scriptures... don't you want to do it now? Or do you see something wrong with Exodus 20 as I posted it? And, of course, you still fail to address MY accusation of tampering with the Scriptures. Is false accusation the way to deal with an accusation, Thorin?

Most of your post is contra Malbeth, so I'll let him answer it... but I ask you one thing: do you really think that the Scriptures came before Tradition? Can you give me an historical account of how this could have happened? I guess those books wrote themselves. No Christians involved. Or perhaps they weren't allowed to discuss doctrine, at all, before the NT was written. Which would make the controversies alluded to in the NT really strange...

:confused:

[Dr. Ransom]

ACK! I just found this thread... where can I jump in? lol

I'll try and go re-read everything already said, but it's enough for a small book at least... :D

[Malbeth]

Hi, Dr. Ransom, and welcome!
If you're a protestant, I'd really appreciate it if you began with Sola Scriptura, since Thorin continually refuses to defend it.

Thorin, from the top:

No, but there are alot of priests who long to serve their God and also have a family but they are torn with sexual frustration in all areas because their church says they can't do both. Why not? Paul gave council. He didn't restrict.

You can serve God and have a family, being a priest is not the only way to serve God you know. The Church, with two thousand years' experience to back her judgement, decided it would be best if priests were celibate. So, as a matter of discipline, not doctrine or morals, She requires priests of the Western rite to be celibate.

As to the 10 commandments... my Bible does not come with any numbering, but perhaps your does... it is not how you number them, you can find in those words as many commandments as you like, as long as you obey all of them, not editing any one out.
As you yourself said, the first contains both of them , so Catholics have to obey both of them. What's the big deal? There was no tampering with God's law involved at all. The Church has not, and I repeat, not, altered the 10 commandments; as can be seen from the Catechism, She accepts all of them.


To you this act (perfect contrition) is what you'd classify as penance. In the Bible to get forgiveness, we need ask with a right heart.

No, it is not penance. If you do not know what I'm talking about, do not assume a meaning and think it is what I'm saying. My definition of an act of perfect contrition, as posted in this thread before, was:"You have to have perfect contriction (i.e being really sorry for having offended such a loving God)."

You, however, assumed I was talking about something quite different, penance. It seems you're not reading what I'm writing...

Why bother? None of us can seem to prove that the other is the only standard to judge spiritual matters by.

Don't you want to try to prove, by the Bible alone, that Sola Scriptura is right? You have not yet done that, just attacked Catholic doctrines piecemeal...

If you can prove to me that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, I'll renounce Catholicism. However, if it cannot be proved that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, then why should you accept it?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
I notice you failed to withdraw your accusation that Catholicism tampered with the Scriptures... don't you want to do it now? Or do you see something wrong with Exodus 20 as I posted it? And, of course, you still fail to address MY accusation of tampering with the Scriptures. Is false accusation the way to deal with an accusation, Thorin?
In all fairness, there has been alot of mine this last week, even in the last few posts that has gone ignored by yourself and Malbeth, so don't be so eager for a direct response, Eriol...
The scriptures have still been tampered with IMO though no real harm seems to have been done but as I face the Catholic inqusition court of Popes Eriol and Malbeth, I will invoke the the words of that great spiritual revolutionary, Luther....I WILL NOT RECANT!!! :D
YOU still haven't laid out anything concerning the Protestant accusation, or do you mean the whole justification by faith ALONE? If that's it we're both grasping at straws, apparently. Is this a text that has been physically altered in the "protestant" bible? Or is it a conclusion drawn from the rest of scripture. Based on the rest of scripture, this dictum is true and supported elsewhere. We are only made right through our faith. We are "justified" only by the grace of God. We are still judged on our works however and need to live a good life, but that is sanctification. Justification is all on God's part. Is there more instances that you are thinking of?

Originally posted by Eriol
But I ask you one thing: do you really think that the Scriptures came before Tradition? Can you give me an historical account of how this could have happened? I guess those books wrote themselves. No Christians involved. Or perhaps they weren't allowed to discuss doctrine, at all, before the NT was written. Which would make the controversies alluded to in the NT really strange...
Keep in mind that the Bible as we know it was created by the end of the 1st century many years after Christ died. All of it probably was handed down tradition that became what we know as the books of the NT. In other words, the NT IS the sacred tradition. The same as well with the OT. Anything after that is post apostolic. To assume that the disciples had another whole area of theology and inspiration that didn't get in the scriptures means that whomever wrote down their words after they died (in some instances) felt it wasn't important enough to record, seeing as all this was probably recorded 20 to 30 years after Christ died. More than enough time for sacred tradition to be recorded. Then came the writings of Paul. More sacred tradition and direct inspiration from God (including all his special creation comments:D). What more was needed? Anything else is strictly assumption, not dogma.

I say again: The NT WAS the sacred tradition. There was more than enough time to record everything that Christians were supposed to follow or needed to know about God's plan. Hence why the Bible is the only thing the Christian needs. Anything after that is simply man made tradition.

[Eriol]

Well, I don't remember a single instance of my evading a question, in any thread, ever. Refresh my memory :).

So, you say that Catholics have tampered with the Scriptures; we say we did not, and prove it; and you think it is ok.

Then I say Protestants tampered with the Scriptures; you agree with it; and think it's ok, because "it is a conclusion drawn from the rest of Scripture".

? :confused:

Is it ok to tamper with the Scriptures or not?

Sola Scriptura allows tampering "if it is done in a way agreeing with the rest of Scripture"?

That's what I find so interesting about Protestant mish-mash... opps, sorry, Protestant doctrine :):

You are strict literalists, condemning mythical Genesis -- and then you say that THIS IS MY BODY is a metaphor, a representation, not to be taken literally.

You say Sola Scriptura, and then tamper with the Scripture.

You say that NT is the sacred tradition, as if St. Paul & Co. were writing a corpus of doctrine, and not writing letters to the churches in response to specific concerns.

Protestant doctrine is confusing :D.

P.S. Justification by faith is a doctrine agreed by all of us. The problem is ADDING A WORD TO SCRIPTURE. If you think this is a minor matter, I wonder at your "Sola Scriptura". And this is a minor example -- taking away whole books is more serious, I'd say.

Protestantism appears to be:

Sola Scriptura, as long as it agrees with us, else we change it;

Strict literalism, as long as it agrees with us, else we discard it;

and so on.

Confusing.

[Malbeth]

The NT WAS the sacred tradition. There was more than enough time to record everything that Christians were supposed to follow or needed to know about God's plan.

Is this more assumption or are you going to provide quotes from the New Testament that prove Sola Scriptura?

To assume that the disciples had another whole area of theology and inspiration that didn't get in the scriptures means that whomever wrote down their words after they died (in some instances) felt it wasn't important enough to record, seeing as all this was probably recorded 20 to 30 years after Christ died. More than enough time for sacred tradition to be recorded.

You seem to forget that the New Testament consists of the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelation. Of these three, only the Gospels were composed after the fact. Revelation is the description of a vision and the Epistles are responses to particular situations. None of them is meant to be a Catechism. And the Gospels themselves state that Jesus said a lot of things and did a lot of miracles that were not recorded on them.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; (John 20:30)

So, did Jesus perform unimportant signs? Why did He do it? Just for the heck of it?

Is this a text that has been physically altered in the "protestant" bible?

In fact, Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German did say we're saved through faith alone.
If you think that the adding of one word is so unimportant, you might consider the doings of the Council of Nicea, where the fate of Christendom hung, not on a word, but on an "i"! The Catholic bishops said "homo-ousion", i.e that Christ and the Father are equal in essence, and the arian bishops said "homoi-ousion", that Christ and the Father are similar in essence... So, the adding of one word alone can change christianity, and should not be done even when in accordance with the rest of the Bible.

There is also Luther's rejection of James as an "epistle of straw", the universal protestant rejection of the deutero-canonical books, and so on...

The scriptures have still been tampered with IMO though no real harm seems to have been done

So, is it Ok to tamper with the Scriptures or not? If Catholics have tampered with Scripture,show it, and tell us real harm has been done. If Catholics did not tamper with the Scriptures, you should admit it.

[Dr. Ransom]

*thumps head on desk...*

We need to set posting limits for you 3... lol

Anyway Malbeth, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to defend.
My understandings on "Sola Scriptura" is simple, literally translated "Scripture alone", which refers to the authority of the Christian.

It is an attack on the evolution (like that tern Eriol... :-p ) of church theology. As the church changed from the ancient catholic church, to the mediviel "Roman catholic church." I have never had many theological arguments with RC's, so bare with me here... I'm not sure how you justify the change in important theology from the early creeds to RC beginning with Gregory the Great (who I certainly believe we will see in heaven... BTW)

The reformers were simply attacking the authority of the RC church... Creeds, Church leadership, and the Pope. Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone decides our theology. It's quite the same as Sola Fide, and the rest of them (no, I don't know latin).

I'll start with that...

(sorry for being soo late, worked my tail off all weekend)

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
I'm not sure how you justify the change in important theology from the early creeds to RC beginning with Gregory the Great (who I certainly believe we will see in heaven... BTW)


Simply, Dr. Ransom -- there was no change. The RC medieval Church was the development of the Early Church. Development is NOT the same thing as change. Every -- EVERY Catholic belief is present from the beginning, including the most outrageous ones -- Real Presence of Christ, veneration of saints, relics, Mary... and, of course, the authority of the Pope, too.

No change.

Which means that Protestant Reformation did the changing. In simple words -- Protestants believe that the early Church was Protestant; they are wrong. It was Catholic.

I may be shouted out for saying that, but check for yourself.

And Malbeth will explain to you (among other things) why Sola Scriptura (which means that Sacred Tradition has no authority) is Unscriptural (hehe) and absent from the early Church.

[Malbeth]

Hi, Dr. Ransom!

If Scripture Alone is true, then Scripture should teach it... It means that there is no such thing as Sacred (apostolic) Tradition, that Scripture is the only standard of Christian truth... so you have to provide bible verses that teach this.

[Elendil3119]

In proclaiming this Biblical truth of Sola Scriptura, a believer acknowledges that the 66 books of the Bible are the holy, inspired Word of God, and that the Bible alone has authority over the Christian Church. It is the inerrant rule of the church's life. The Scriptures alone are sufficient to reveal the 'Good News' of God's plan of salvation for man. Here are a few verses for you:






All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2Ti 3:16-17





"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." Pr 30:5-6





"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." Isa 40:8





If he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--…Jn 10:35





Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."…1Co 4:6





…Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" Mt 15:6-9





Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2Pe 1:20-21





The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Gal 3:8-9





Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Ac 17:11





To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isa 8:20





Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2Ti 4:2-4





"As for God,