Jesus founded one church - Catholic ????

[Starflower]

Eriol, I would like to take you up on your offer and discuss the differences between the Catholic beliefs and the Protestant .

:)

I am a non-practising Lutheran, although I have been a part of an "evangleical" movement as well. I would like to dedicate this thread to the discussion between the differences ( and similarities ) between your beliefs and mine. Please, anyone post your opinions.

[Celebthôl]

Its your funeral SF.

That last debate i had with him lasted about 4 months, and was about 700 posts long and we were no closer to any answer at the end of it. . . . . . . good luck with that. . . :D

[Starflower]

well someting to keep me occupied then :D

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Its your funeral SF.

That last debate i had with him lasted about 4 months, and was about 700 posts long and we were no closer to any answer at the end of it. . . . . . . good luck with that. . . :D
Yeah, but in all fairness Celebthol, your belief system is far from a Christian's and quite unorthodox, so it was bound to be an interesting haul. Protestants and Catholics are closer in orthodoxy (though the argument COULD take just as long with Eriol...that stubborn papist!) Just kidding Eriol!:D

If I may try my hand at an answer before Eriol jumps in with a vengeance. The basic difference between the two (and what has caused much conflict over the centuries is):

The Protestants believe that the Catholic church has strayed into apostasy from the apostolic faith by putting more emphasis on traditions, pomp, wealth and power then in the basic gospel message of the scriptures. The Catholic church believes that they are representing the apostolic faith through their traditions and that they are the proper interpreters of the scriptures. The word of God is both scripture AND church tradition to the Catholic. The Protestant motto (in theory) is 'sola scriptura' - 'the Bible and the Bible alone'. Unfortunately, many Protestant faiths claim this but don't really practice it.

[Malbeth]

I think Thorin's answer is almost right... it could even be considered exactly right, depending on the interpretation; so, to avoid misunderstandings, I just want to clear up one thing.

The word of God is both scripture AND church tradition to the Catholic.

Actually, to a Catholic both scripture and Sacred (i.e. Apostolic) Tradition are authoritative. There are also some Church traditions (i.e, traditions made by the Church) that affect only the practice of Catholics (like feast-days, fast-days, priest celibacy), not faith or morals. So, these church traditions can change (and have changed) throughout the Church's history, but Apostolic Tradition cannot.

Starflower, if you want more info on this, check the The Protestant Reformation (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12088) thread.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Malbeth
Actually, to a Catholic both scripture and Sacred (i.e. Apostolic) Tradition are authoritative.... So, these church traditions can change (and have changed) throughout the Church's history, but Apostolic Tradition cannot.And the Protestant will ask, "And what exactly is Sacred Tradition and who exactly defines it?" to which the Catholic will answer "the apostles established it and the church has been the same way ever since". To which the Protestant scoffs, because they believe that unless they were absolutely there with apostles you can really only guess outside of scripture as to what the apostles did and did not sanction. Hence the reason for only going with the Bible.

As far as the Protestant church is concerned Catholic practices like
- indulgences
- praying to the saints
- adoration and intercession of Mary
- transubstantiation
- infant baptism
- relics
- purgatory
- sarcedotalism (the mediating role of priests)

are all church traditions that were result of the corruption of the church by power and influence and are not sanctioned by the scriptures (transubstantiation seems to be the only one you might have a leg to stand on with). And I would even add into that list Sunday worship. Catholics, however, seem to believe that these were all practiced and endorsed by the apostles (at least that's what Eriol would have me believe).

With this mindset, however, I can understand where Eriol and Malbeth are coming from. It is virtually impossible to admit that there is infallibility in the church (even with issues of faith and morals - another Catholic claim and not apostolic) when you believe that NOTHING has changed or became corrupted in the church and that whatever can't be explained or reasoned by the scriptures is pawned off with the explanation of "sacred tradition". There is no room for error whatsoever! Unfortunately, there is also no room for serious biblical study of possible unbiblical doctrine.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
And the Protestant will ask, "And what exactly is Sacred Tradition and who exactly defines it?"

The Catholic would answer "what exactly is Scripture and who exactly defines it?"

:D

The Church is the Mother of Scripture. Protestants have the priority (I'm not talking about importance -- only who came first) uspide down. There was a Catholic Church, full of "Catholic practices", before there was any Scripture (or at least any accepted canon).

(another Catholic claim and not apostolic)

We can't really see the difference ;). Every Catholic doctrine is grounded in both Tradition and Scripture. And the earliest documents of the Church show that the Church was already "Catholic" (in the sense of "having those Catholic practices") from the beginning.

Of course, both Starflower and Thorin read my posts on that Young Earth thread that explain how the Catholic Church has no possibility to err, in the eyes of Catholics. This "infalllibility" is among the "Catholic practices" you would condemn, Thorin... every argument about heresy in the first centuries of the Church was settled out in this way, by recourse to the authority of the Church -- and that included the primacy of Rome. There was never any "apostolic tradition" that was not Catholic; at least not any documented one. In fact, the best documented one would be the Book of Acts; and there we see how Catholic the Church was.

(As I said in the other thread, I'm no biblical scholar; I just trust the Church's teaching here. She has never failed me, you know ;). Whenever I had some doubt about Her teaching, I looked for the explanation and found it. I'd like to see your arguments against all that... they might spur this lazy sailor into doing some research :D)

Should I post those quotes back here? Neither Thorin nor Starflower addressed them in that thread. To me they are quite explicit; almost as explicit as John 6 and transubstantiation ;).

[Rangerdave]

Jesus founded one church- Catholic???

Not to be one to pick nits, but Jesus of Nazareth never founded a church.
Peter founded the Catholic Church.


Now, carry on with your metaphysical discussions

RD

[Malbeth]

And the Protestant will ask, "And what exactly is Sacred Tradition and who exactly defines it?"

As Eriol pointed out, Scripture was, in fact, defined by Tradition, not vice-versa.

However, I'll post and comment some quotes from a thread that quickly degenerated into an ugly discussion to illustrate my points... please let's not get into the subject of that thread, it is simply illustrative:

I think you misunderstood me - some priests of my church, which is the largest christian church in Germany, bless the partnership between partners with the same gender with the accordance of the bishops - not the individual homosexuals.

The bible was written by human beings neither from God nor from Jesus Christ - the christian churches interpreted the bible differently = for me there is no christian universal law.
by Samweis
This is, I think, one of the first quotes that began the discussion that interests me here, i.e., the fact that some Christian Churches (even large Churches) teach things that radically differ from common Christian understanding... as the quote shows, the German Lutheran Church approves homosexual marriages.

This (no universal Christian view on homosexuality) may be true, by I think there should be. If a member of the clergy condones a homosexual union, I believe that clergy member is sinning, because homosexuality is plainly portrayed as sin in the Bible.
If a person were claiming to be both Christian and homosexual, then I would call them a hypocrite, and I would be judging them.
both quotes by Rhiannon

Here we have the opposition, with which most Christians concur, that the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin.

So let me explain what I mean - I don´t expect that everybody accept my sexuality, but I expect that everybody has to tolerate it.

If someone thinks that he/she/it has the right to judge about my sexuality or about my faith, it would be intolerant.

Christianity is not a universal faith, there are differences among the churches: f.e. Jehovas´witnesses are not allowed to go into the military forces, because of the commandment: You shall not kill - but catholics, protestants etc etc. are soldiers.
by Samweis

Here Samweis is arguing that, since his Church tells him that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, no one has the right to tell him that he is not a Christian, or that he is a hypocrite, since churches differ on their beliefs.

what I'm trying to say, is sinning is going directly against God's wishes, and I think being gay isn't a sin. But being an adulterer and a prostitute is, that's why Jesus told her "go and sin no more". Had she been a man, I believe Jesus would have said exaclty the same thing.
by Starflower
Starflower, also a Lutheran, after arguing that God does not care about our sexuality says that therefore she does not think homosexuality is a sin. Later she says that the Lutheran Church frowns upon pre-marital sex, but does not consider it a sin.

From the next post on, the debate begins to get more interesting regarding what I am trying to talk about here;

Do Lutheran churches even believe the Bible? If they do...they should know that sex outside of marraige is adultery.
by Eliot

Here Eliot invokes the only authority protestants accept, the Bible. He says that, since the Bible clearly says that sex outside marriage is adultery, he doubts the Lutheran Churches' belief in the Bible. I do indeed agree with Eliot's interpretation but what he does not seem to see that it is just that, an interpretation made by a human being, which is fallible, unless you postulate an infallible interpreter.

do not be offensive please, of course Lutherans believe in the Bible, we are Christians
And yes sex outside the marriage is adultery, that is if you are married and have sex with somenoe other than your spouse, the BIble does't specifically adress the issue of PRE-MARITAL sex, and it is a matter of theology , which differs between churches. The catholic believe that you have to confess your sins to a priest in order for them to be forgiven , and many catholics also believe that contraception is sin. The Church of England doesnt' ordain female bishops, but ordains gay bishops. Lutheran church ordains women but not gays......
by Starflower
Starflower claims here that, according to her (and, presumably her Church's) interpretation, the Bible does not address the issue of Pre-Marital sex.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body. But he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body - 1 Corinthians 6:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. What is fornication?
by Thorin
Here Thorin gives a Bible quote that, according to him, clearly states that the Bible forgive sex outside marriage. One could claim, however, that what Paul really means are the ritual-sex pagans had in their worship, and that this was necessary then, but it is not now (rather like Thorin's claims there was need of infallibility of teaching by the Apostles then, but there is no such need now, isn't it?)

However, the line of defense chosen by Starflower was even more interesting... let's look at her argument:

I was always taught that the words of Jesus should be my guide, as wise and authoritative Paul is, his words are secondhand information, and he himself says that Jesus' words are the ones we should live by, not his.He is advising us, not commanding
by Starflower

Starflower simply says that, when Paul speaks, it is simply not God who is speaking, but a man, Paul, and therefore not an infallible authority.

This was countered, not surprisingly, by this quote: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."

No easy way to get around that.
by Elendil3119

This is where it gets to start very interesting. Starflower claimed that the words of Paul are not authoritative, and, to counter that Elendil quotes no one else but Paul himself. Let us ignore here that Paul was referring not to his writings, but to the Jewish Scriptures (the only ones known as Scripture then). However, once we doubt the authority of Paul, nothing that he says can be used as an argument. If we define the Bible as a collection of books inspired by God and free from all error, what Starflower was really arguing in her last quote was that Paul's Epistles should not be in the Bible at all! Therefore, since, according to this argument, the quote posted by Elendil3119 should not be part of Scripture, we would not consider anything Paul wrote as inspired, even if we do happen to agree with Paul at this particular point.

Some will say that if indeed Starflower thinks that Paul's writings should not be in the Bible (remember, this is only my deduction from my definition of Scripture), then she does not believe in the Bible, and therefore is not a Christian.

But suppose she says, indignantly; "I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible... but my Bible is different from your Bible, and since Christians disagree about a lot of things no one has the right to deny my status as a Christian simply because my Bible is different" (remember here that Protestant Bibles are indeed different from Catholic Bibles; the Protestant Bible has fewer books).

Who can say that she is wrong? I mean, who has the authority to define what books should be in the bible and what books should not?

Just to throw more confusion, suppose Athelas (a gnostic) comes in and says "I am a Christian and believe in the Bible, but my bible does not have the old testament, and the new testament consists of books totally different from your bible" (supposedly the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Truth and other writings)

How can we say that he is wrong?! And then Celebthôl comes in and says "My bible is that book that I really want you to read, and that movie that I really want you to see.

And then, of course, the result is exactly what is to be expected the total dissolution of Christianity. Is that what is supposed to happen? No! And to stop this Christ established an authority that would remain on earth, and it was this authority that defined the Bible, and it was this same authority that defined: - indulgences
- praying to the saints
- adoration and intercession of Mary
- transubstantiation
- infant baptism
- relics
- purgatory
- sarcedotalism (the mediating role of priests)

But, even if we put aside this matter of where the Canon of the Bible came from, we should remember that even though protestants all accept the same Bible, there are still 20000 (!) different Protestant denominations.

In my next post, I'll post a few more quotes to show where this private interpretation of the Bible leads in practice.

[Malbeth]

So, to conclude, a few more quotes from the other thread to show where this private interpretation leads:

I have my christian faith - you have your christian faith.from Samweiss
The Christian faith is based on the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible, you're not a Christian.by Eliot
Are you God that you are able to judge about my faith?from Samweiss
If you could tell me where I said that, I'd give you $10 million.

In my previous post, I'm stating the obvious. Removed

No insulting, please.by Eliot

I don't know what the insults were but I do think that thread, horrible though it is, is a perfect example of what happens when there is no visible authority... which just goes to show that indeed good does come out of evil. :)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Malbeth
As Eriol pointed out, Scripture was, in fact, defined by Tradition, not vice-versa.No it wasn't. Scripture existed in some form or another before the Church. Canonization was defined by Tradition (though I wouldn't call a church council gathering together to compile holy writings the same tradition as the next mentioned practices. And if what you are saying is true, then the church must have known what it was doing by compiling ONLY what they did. In other words, they put the books they did together because it was THE authority for Christians to follow.Originally posted by Malbeth
And then, of course, the result is exactly what is to be expected the total dissolution of Christianity. Is that what is supposed to happen? No! And to stop this Christ established an authority that would remain on earth, and it was this authority that defined the Bible, and it was this same authority that defined:
indulgences
- praying to the saints
- adoration and intercession of Mary
- transubstantiation
- infant baptism
- relics
What you are saying is that the church has the utmost authority because they compiled what Christians believe today. Tradition existed before this compilation therefore to doubt the church in one is to doubt them in another. What you don't seem to realize is that those books and writings existed before there was any such canon. Hence, those writings and sayings have more authority then the body that put them together in a coherent compilation.

If the church is the authority on the scriptures, and that the tradition existed before canonization, then you 'd think that there would be written books by this authoritative body added to that canon in great support of the above mentioned traditions. After all, if they were practiced and endorsed by the apostles, there should be written epistles or such supporting that. Being the utmost authority and compiler of the apostles writings as well as the apostolic church on earth, it should be perfectly acceptable for the church to do so. So where are they? Where in the pseudipigrapha, apocrypha or even the book of Thomas are the above mentioned traditions written down as part of the belief structure of Christians?

The reason being is that they were not practices sanctioned by the early apostolic church but added later on strictly as tradition. The Church accepted these books as canon, not because of their great power and authority or that their traditions should take precedence, but because the apostles wrote it, and that is where the authority lies, otherwise they would have compiled alot more that was not included in canon. And this is where the Protestant church deviates. Unless their is sufficient biblical evidence or other record at the apostles time that supports such traditions, they are not binding. If they contradict the scriptures, then they are in error, tradition or not.

And here comes the circle....If the church is the sole interpreter of scripture, then nothing can contradict the tradition. It all becomes a matter of "interpretation" and only the church can interpret it, therefore the traditions are confirmed as right by the church's interpretation.

[Malbeth]

No it wasn't. Scripture existed in some form or another before the Church. Canonization was defined by Tradition

But isn't Canonization the process through which it is defined what books belong in the Bible? So, if Tradition defines Canonization, and Canonization defines the Bible (that's what Canonization means), Tradition defines the Bible.

And if what you are saying is true, then the church must have known what it was doing by compiling ONLY what they did. In other words, they put the books they did together because it was THE authority for Christians to follow.

Indeed true; when the Church defined Scripture, She defined what books should be believed as an authority. But, of course, this authority has to depend on the authority of the Church herself. If Celebthôl defined scripture as "that book I really want you to read, and that movie I really want you to see" (no offense meant Thôl... it is simply that I found that thread very amusing, and I know you are not one quick to take offense), we would not accept this as Scripture, because we do not accept Celebthôl's authority. And, of course, Catholics accept the authority of Scripture, we just see that it depends on the authority of the Church, as the authority of the Church depends on Jesus.

So, the Catholic position on authority is:
Jesus->Church->Bible,
while the Protestant position on authority is:
Jesus-> Bible.
This position fails simply because Jesus did not define what books should be in the bible. Is there a way out of this? I mean is there a way to authoritatively define what books should be in the Bible and what books should not?

Being the utmost authority and compiler of the apostles writings as well as the apostolic church on earth, it should be perfectly acceptable for the church to do so. So where are they? Where in the pseudipigrapha, apocrypha or even the book of Thomas are the above mentioned traditions written down as part of the belief structure of Christians?

Unspoken assumption: the apostles wrote down everything that they taught.

There simply is no claim in Scripture that the Apostles wrote down everything that they taught, and a lot of claims to the contrary... to see them, just go to the Protestant Reformation thread...

Once we realize that, we see Sola Scriptura in the Protestant sense for what it is; a belief based on a tradition started by Luther, and not a biblically-based belief.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Malbeth
But isn't Canonization the process through which it is defined what books belong in the Bible? So, if Tradition defines Canonization, and Canonization defines the Bible (that's what Canonization means), Tradition defines the Bible. Again, no it doesn't. It defines what writings compile the Bible. This is different than taking authority over what was already previously written. Just because the church decided that the epistles should go in, doesn't mean that it has authority over what the epistles say. The epistles and their authority existed before the church. Again, the fact that the church chose the epistles to be in the Bible shows that they felt it was pretty important and valid. Were it not to be taken as ultimate authority over the church, the church would have put in their own writings defining Christian beliefs.
Originally posted by Malbeth
Indeed true; when the Church defined Scripture, She defined what books should be believed as an authority. But, of course, this authority has to depend on the authority of the Church herself.....And, of course, Catholics accept the authority of Scripture, we just see that it depends on the authority of the Church, as the authority of the Church depends on Jesus.Just because the church got the ball rolling, doesn't mean they can pat themselves on the back as the creator and interpreter of doctrine. The books define themselves and it is the church to adopt the scripture to their creed, not the other way around. The writings were far above the church (without the writings, there would be no creed or council to compile them) and the individuals. The church was a means to further understanding, not to take authority over it. This is where the church eventually failed. Tradition and power replaced the bible and the biblical mandate to 'preach the gospel', withholding the scriptures and writings that even the Pagans and early church people read when they were first written. They then hid behind the unbiblical view of infallibility to hide behind their slipping doctrinal interpretation. That is why there was need for a reformation, not a split. The church disagreed and tightened their strangle hold by continuing to lift tradition and superstition over the Bible to the people.

Originally posted by Malbeth
So, the Catholic position on authority is:
Jesus->Church->Bible,
while the Protestant position on authority is:
Jesus-> Bible.
This position fails simply because Jesus did not define what books should be in the bible. Is there a way out of this? I mean is there a way to authoritatively define what books should be in the Bible and what books should not?No, but neither did Jesus say that only the apostles and their sucessors could interpret the scriptures or withhold them from the people or determine themselves as the ultimate authority on faith and morals for all the people. These are all unbiblical claims the church established for itself.
Originally posted by Malbeth
Unspoken assumption: the apostles wrote down everything that they taught. There simply is no claim in Scripture that the Apostles wrote down everything that they taught, and a lot of claims to the contrary... to see them, just go to the Protestant Reformation thread...Once we realize that, we see Sola Scriptura in the Protestant sense for what it is; a belief based on a tradition started by Luther, and not a biblically-based belief.
But nowhere does it say in the NT that the traditions or practices of the church are to be side by side or authoritative over the scriptures. And until you can find any writings from anyone dating back and directly sanctioned by apostles or divine revelation, you cannot say that tradition is 'sacred'. Just because some leaders in the church defined the tradition, doesn't mean that it is sacred and binding for the people, nor does it mean that it should be right along side scripture as authority. IMO, saying, "Scripture and tradition" is just as unbiblical as you say Sola Scriptura is.

[Dr. Ransom]

Not to be one to pick nits, but Jesus of Nazareth never founded a church.

Not to be a picknit RD... but you're wrong. :D


My main argument is Matthew 16:18

And I tell you that you are Peter,[ 16:18 Peter means rock.] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[ 16:18 Or hell] will not overcome it.[ 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it] (www.biblegateway.com)

The "my" in "my church" sort of leans away from your argument RD. And even assuming that Jesus didn't start the church, most would argue that it was Paul and not Peter who was really influential, since he turned a jewish faith into a catholic, or universal faith.

Now you might be thinking "wait, didn't the church technically begin at pentecoast?" And in fact, you're right. But the foundation of the church is still Christ, and the giving of The Spirit is still an act of God. If you'd like to debate the deity of Christ be my guest. But if we start with that premise, than Christ is the founder of the church.

[Edit: Grammer and Spelling]

[Rangerdave]

I think you may have missed the point here. I am not questioning the divinity of anything, I am remarking that the initial use of the founded was inaccurate.

Jesus of Nazareth did not found a church; he founded a religion: a completely different concept altogether. A religion is a complex metaphysic based on faith. A church is a physical institution, complete with ritual, organizational structure and more often than not, architecture.
In the quote you presented, the operative word is not “my” but rather “build.” Christ founded a religion, but Peter founded or to put it another way “built” Christ’s church.

And before you point to the follows of Christ: they are not a church inasmuch as a congregation.

As I have tried to make clear on many different occasions, I respect the views of others insofar as they do not intrude upon my beliefs. Therefore I do not seek to correct or redefine anyone’s ideal of faith. What I do seek to redefine in the correct form in which to present a topic for debate.

Or to be blunt, I don’t care what you say, so long as you say it well. :)


RD