At what point do we acknowledge being "Sifted like wheat"

[JonLanceBarker]

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/vincent.aspx

So the RCC tradition is true because it's true. Interesting way to put things...

He did not say "the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church."

Did you read beyond that?

[JonLanceBarker]

I think there are several that do. They all teach the essential truth while there is disagreement on secondary issues.

The Orthodox Church does not share your definition of "essential."

I simply find this stunning. This is the exact same line I keep hearing from the Mormons.

Is that so? Well, let me know when you find the American false prophet who started the Orthodox Church.

Tell me Jon, what part of the essential truth is my church leaving out? I want to know.

When have you been taught (or taught others) that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth?"

When have you been taught (or taught others) that the Eucharist is, in fact, the Body of Christ (instead of a mere memorial ordinance)?

[lilpixieofterror]

He did not say "the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church."

Did you read beyond that?

It's still using tradition to prove tradition. Try again...

[lilpixieofterror]

I knew you said that you believe no church holds the complete truth.

That is because that is where the evidence points.

My second question was, do YOU hold the complete truth? In other words (to say it reversed), do you ascribe to any false teachings?

I might and if evidence comes to light that I do, I change it. Thus the reason for my choice of non-denominational.

First of all, do you know what an indulgence is?

Do I know what they were being used for in the time of Martian Luther and why he had such issues with him. Yes I do. I also know that there is not single scriptural support for the practice.

Indulgences are fine. The abuse of indulgences (what was happening in medieval Europe during Luther's time) is bad. But again, that's not something that the Church Herself endorsed authoritatively. The individual priests who were doing that were in the wrong, and were disciplined and told, by the Church, to stop.

Interesting because as I recall it Martian Luther was summoned to Rome and the RCC itself attempt to silence him on it. I thought these preachers were acting on the authority of the Pope and if you really think I am wrong on this, tell us all where the money came from to fund some rather interesting building projects in Rome... Like it or not, the RCC was downright wrong on this issue and it seems it did not want to change. How can the RCC be the true church when it was using dishonest methods (such as the selling of indulgences) to raise cash?

[lilpixieofterror]

What group of orthodox Catholics disagree over a defined doctrine in the Church?

The two most common disagreement I tend to have has to do with some sexual practices. I'm going to bet that many of the early

How does this deny that Christ wants us to be completely unified? If anything it SUPPORTS that assertion. The fact that a Church council was held in Acts 15 and that it's decision (over a doctrinal dispute) was held as binding over all the Church is plenty of evidence that local churches didn't just "do their own thing." Yes, 2,000 ago they didn't have TV and E-mail and cell phones, so word traveled slower, but that doesn't mean that they were any less doctrinally dependent on the universal Church leadership.

Unified at the cost of truth? I don't think so and thus the reason that the church has, throughout the centuries, split because of that very issue. However; you will not see me becoming a Roman Catholic until I can fully agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine, which I can not do in full consciousness as of now.

Then do please explain how we can be completely one, as Christ and the Father are one, if we disagree over doctrine?

Disagreements are a fact of life and you find it anywhere. It is absurd to actually think that all humans and all Christians should always be in 100% total agreement. Where the disciples always in 100% total agreement? Not at all and we find that they disagreed all over the scriptures. Unless you want to brainwash everybody to think just like the church tells them to, it's not happening. Besides, it is those disagreements that allow us to read and understand our faith in a better context and to defend it.

How can we be "like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, and of one mind" if we disagree over doctrine?

No where does this indicate or mean that you can't disagree, focus on Christ and disagree in love. Sorry, but no where does that imply that we should just mindlessly follow.

Is there anywhere in Scripture that indicates that the Body of Christ should be able to disagree over defined doctrine?

Is there anywhere in Scripture where it says that God is a Calvinist and you should be one too?

That's not a doctrinal dispute. Protestants are divided into denominations due to doctrinal disputes.

Really? So you're telling me that sexual practices (such as sex only for children) or rather or not Molinism is true or not are not doctrinal disputes? And nope... not all protestants are divided into denominations due to doctrinal disputes, but some of them due to just what I described, a division in a church where they split into two. Divisions do not need to be over doctrine to be divisions or to divide a congregation. Simply not liking the pastor/priest can cause a division.

The Early Church was worried about it, Pixie, not just the modern "civilian" world. I have no problem with ecumneism, I think it's great. But that's not full unity if you cannot come together in one accord on what the truth is.

And until you can show me that the RCC has the full truth, I can't be one in good consciousness. Thus the reason for my choice of 'non-denominational'. Sorry, but yet again... unity does not mean 100% total agreement. If you are married, do you always agree with your wife? Yes or no? If you do disagree with her, I guess you are divided according to the definition you have brought forth here.

Yes, I have. I have no idea who else has. But that has nothing to do with a single church ITSELF, splitting because of doctrinal disputes. This is systemic problem within Protestantism, not Catholicism, because of the way that Protestants arrive at truth and your interpretations of the Bible.

I have heard and seen just as many church's split due to simply not liking somebody as they do over doctrinal disputes. Some of these disputes are pretty petty and funny, such as over the practice of tongues and rather or not it's a modern day practice (instead of one that no longer exist). People will find any excuse to split up and it doesn't need to have anything to do with doctrine to cause a division and don't tell me Roman Catholics are above this because well... protestants exist because of a split in the the RCC to begin with.

You'll have to offer me an example if you want to make that stick.

The split of the Lutherans and the RCC is a classic example of this, unless you want to deny

So your position is that disagreement is a good thing? You think it's good that denominations within Protestantism have split, and split, and split, rather than remaining unified?

Nothing like a strawman argument to make your case. Disagreements are a good thing because they make you study things more in depth and go over your beliefs in greater detail. Please don't tell me that Catholics are above splits due to disagreements because we both know that the Lutherans are a split from the church (unless you want to deny their Catholic roots). We also both know that there are former Catholics (as well as former Protestants) that end up splitting and going to the other church.

I'm sorry, but you have no basis in Scripture or Tradition for maintaining that. That is a completely postmodern, rationalizing perspective on the Church that makes excuses for its shortcomings; not the historic view that has been maintained for 2,000 years within Church teaching. The Bible indicates over and voer and over again the need to remain unified, and the fact that disputes are a BAD thing in the Body:

So you're telling me that the early church never had a single disagreement and doesn't continue to have disagreements right up to the modern day? Please, don't throw up this crap here, it just makes you look foolish. We both know that disagreements have been part of church history since Jesus died on that cross and continues to play a major role in the shaping of our faith. Sorry... unity does not mean you must be in 100% total agreement because if you really want to use that logic... your family must be in terrible shape (as well as mine) due to all of our disagreements. Even though I disagree with both my mother and father in terms of faith (as well as other things), they are still my parents and I still continue to remain unified with them. I am sorry, but you are wrong, disagreements don't destroy anything, people bent on splitting themselves apart do that.

blah blah blah blah blah blah...

When you can't make your argument throw up a bible verse. Sorry, but none of these verses apply the 100% total agreement view you are aruging.

For you to maintain that division and dispute are good things within the Body of Christ, frankly, is completely anti-Biblical.

Not at all, your twisting of scripture is pretty funny though. Tell you want, is your family in 100% total agreement at all times? Did you disagree with your parents? How about siblings? Friends? Co workers? Shoot, have you ever had an argument with any of these people? If so, you must be breaking the Bible in terrible ways! Please repent from your sin or drop the crap about 100% total unity or else you are not in Christ. We disagree with one another daily and being one in Christ does not imply or mean 100% total agreement or you're going to hell, that is just a poor belief that will lead people astray.

Yes, they were written because those people recognized that disagreement is a BAD thing that needs to be settled authoritatively; not allowed to continue and fester within the Body.

So 100% total agreement would mean that we wouldn't have our Bible. There you go a great example of disagreements that lead to the greater good and in the creation of an authority to help us out.

So because God brought goodness out of evil, you think evil is somehow good? Wow.

:strawman:

Didn't say that, but when you can't answer my argument, just make up something and hope it sticks. Please stop making these poor arguments and misunderstandings of what I said, it just makes you look foolish.

God can bring unity out of division. Yes. That doesn't make division a good thing. That idea is completely contrary to the teaching of the Apostles.

Sorry, but disagreements are not bad things, unless you are going to argue that you have never ever had a disagreement with a single person that is close to you. Which of course if you did say that I would think you're a liar because I have never seen a person like that. It is possible to disagree with a person and still be united, husbands and wives do it everyday and I think the church can get along just fine and learn to use disagreements for the good and not for evil.

And of course you think that, because you obviously have a very Baptist bent in those areas. You think that Baptism is purely symbolic and Communion is purely symbolic. Otherwise you wouldn't make so light of them. The problem, of course, is that not all Christians agree with you, and a Lutheran would absolutely say you're wrong (if not near blasphemous) for being so cynical about the sacraments.

That's nice and I await for them to back it up with solid evidence, which I can not find anywhere in the scriptures. Christ said to do this in remembrance of him, he did not say that it was him.

Again, that's all your lovely interpretation, but Catholics, Lutherans, and other Christians don't agree with you. We believe the Holy Spirit really IS in the waters of Baptism and that bread and wine really ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. You cannot ask us to put those things to the side just because you find them to be such secondary issues.

And I sit here and await for the back up. May I test communion wine and bread and see if it really his his flesh and blood? Bet you it's not going to be any different. Also, how can you be Baptized in Christ if you do not know him to start with? I thought that knowledge comes before your profession and not the other way around.

Your opinion, but not helpful in a discussion about complete unity in the faith.

And it's such a shame that I can not find one single verse anywhere that says that the communion becomes the flesh and blood of Christ or that Baptism is required or else you are hell bound. I can't find either of these two things anywhere in scripture, perhaps you can?

More Baptist interpretations, but doesn't give an answer to the fact that there are real, substantial differences between denominations, as I've already shown.

And you still have not shown those views in error, all you have done is whine that you don't like these differences. Either back your case with a sold argument that I am wrong or admit you can't. I want evidence, not rants.

Depends what areas of Eschatology and Soteriology you're talking about. Catholic Molinists and Thomists, for example, agree with the Church in all the areas of soteriology that the Church has actually defined. They disagree over something that the Church has not defined.

So I can only disagree with somebody, just so long the church does

To YOU the disagreements are trivial, because you do not hold the sacraments (to just mention one area) in as high of importance as other Christians do. We should not all bend to YOUR lowest common denominator just because you think we should.

Actually, you'll discover that I do take the sacraments a bit more seriously then some others might, I even gone as far as lighting advent candles and holding some liturgical days too (like Advent and Lint). In fact, I have attended all kinds of church's and try to get to know the people as well as the theology of many of the local ones. I have been to at least half a dozen different denominational services in the past 6 months alone. It is amazing how much they all have in common though.

Your opinion. Other Christians disagree with you. That is an area of substantial disagreement. And you're downplaying the importance of that to try to support your point that our disagreements are "trivial," but the point is you can't downplay those importances to anyone but the people who already agree with you. To Catholics, Lutherans, etc, the importance of such things cannot and will not be downplayed.

Which is backed by fact. I have been to many churches (including Catholics and Lutherans) and have enjoyed many of the services. However; I can not agree to a practice in which I don't find any support for and as such, the reason I do not call myself a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran because well... I can't find the support to go with the belief.

I never denied that ecumenism is good. Don't confuse that with complete unity in faith.

Complete unity (like you argue) is impossible and downright absurd. Unity in the sense that although we will fight and argue, but can find common ground and learn from one another is possible.

Yes, Pixie, one guy told the Church, supported by 1,500 years of Church teaching and Tradition, "you're all wrong! Change because I've read the Bible and my interpretation is different than yours!" That's not a split WITHIN Catholicism. Martin Luther LEFT Catholicism by departing from the Catholic method of arriving at doctrine and proper Biblical interpretation. So you can't BLAME Catholicism for that.

Ummm... so let me get this straight... a disagreement with protestants somehow proof that protestants are always breaking apart and splitting, but yet examples (like the Lutheran split) is not a classic example of Catholics disagreeing and spitting because of it. Wow, you are getting sillier and sillier as this argument continues.

The abuse of indulgences were the fault of individual priests within the Church. It was never endorsed authoritatively by the Church Herself.

Really? So you're telling me they were unaware that some priest (and even higher officials then that) were selling off indulgences? Funny, I thought indulgences were even being sold in the holy city itself. Is the pope that clueless about what is going on in his own city and among his own priest?

Different thread, and more of your interpretation.

And nothing you can show to show it is in error.

It can. You just choose to disagree with the evidence. But again, that's another thread.

I do and nothing to show my view in error speaks volumes.

Yes, but of course it always ultimately comes BACK to Scripture, which means it always ultimately comes BACK to an individual's interpretation of Scripture. You give great lip service to Tradition, but when the rubber actually meets the road, if you find a Tradition that you don't think personally jives with your reading of the Bible, you ditch it.

Bible comes first, tradition second and if scripture does not match up with tradition, it is wrong and must change. Unless you want to argue that fallible humans are the ones that tell you want to think or believe.

That was exactly what happened with Martin Luther. Rather than submitting to the teaching and wisdom of the Church, he asserted his own doctrines based on his reading of the Bible, in opposition to the Church and Tradition.

Sorry, I prefer the wisdom of the Bible over the wisdom of fallible popes, thank you very much. If the tradition is wrong and it doesn't match up with scripture, it must be false. Scripture tells us what tradition is, not the other way around.

[RCNicholas]

I might and if evidence comes to light that I do, I change it. Thus the reason for my choice of non-denominational.

You "might,"...but if you do, then how do you know that no church teaches complete truth? Because you're operating as though you DO hold the complete truth, by judging every church out there and saying that they're all wrong.

Do I know what they were being used for in the time of Martian Luther

Not what I asked you. Do you know what an indulgence is?

and why he had such issues with him

Also not what I asked you. Do you know what an indulgence is?

I also know that there is not single scriptural support for the practice.

Really? If you don't don't know what they practice is, how do you know there's no Scriptural support for it?

Interesting because as I recall it Martian Luther was summoned to Rome and the RCC itself attempt to silence him on it.

They brought him to Rome because he was teaching heresy, and they wanted him to recant it. This was not just relating to indulgences: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...-departed.html

I thought these preachers were acting on the authority of the Pope and if you really think I am wrong on this, tell us all where the money came from to fund some rather interesting building projects in Rome...

You'll have to be more specific than that, Pixie. C'mon, you know not to throw unsubstantiated red herrings out there. If you want to make a point, say it and show your evidence.

I'll respond to your other post in a bit.

[lilpixieofterror]

You "might,"...but if you do, then how do you know that no church teaches complete truth? Because you're operating as though you DO hold the complete truth, by judging every church out there and saying that they're all wrong.

Research.

Not what I asked you. Do you know what an indulgence is?

That wasn't the point of my argument now was it? Do you deny that indulgences were being sold and absurd in that time? Yes or no.

Really? If you don't don't know what they practice is, how do you know there's no Scriptural support for it?

I know what it's about (at least in the time of Martian Luther). In short, an indulgence is a partial remission for temporal punishment. AKA... you time in purgatory is either brought down or something about it is made less. A practice which neither has support in the scriptures and was being abused. Do you deny that people were paying money to touch or gauze at holy objects and sold pieces of paper that do just that? If you deny this, might want to go read your history and find out if there is anything here I have got wrong.

They brought him to Rome because he was teaching heresy, and they wanted him to recant it. This was not just relating to indulgences: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...-departed.html

Tisk tisk tisk...

First off blogs are not always that reliable and indulgences being sold to gullible people are indeed one of the things he listed and wrote about and was among his 95 Theses.

Here is what WSU wrote about him on this topic:

He earned a doctorate in theology from the University of Wittenberg, but instead of settling down to a placid and scholarly monkish life or an uneventful university career teaching theology, he began to develop his own personal theology, which erupted into outright blasphemy when he protested the use of indulgences in his 95 Theses.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/LUTHER.HTM

That is just where he got his start and guess what... if you really want to see a pretty historically accurate film about Martin Luther, try watching the movie Luther and you will discover in that film as well that I am right and that was one of his major objections. You'll discover that WSU list out just what I said and yes... it was big buisness.

You'll have to be more specific than that, Pixie. C'mon, you know not to throw unsubstantiated red herrings out there. If you want to make a point, say it and show your evidence.

Really? So you are denying that no higher ups in the church knew what was going on? Sounds like bad leadership to me because clearly WSU says:

Indulgences, which were granted by the pope, forgave individual sinners not their sins, but the temporal punishment applied to those sins. These indulgences had become big business in much the same way pledge drives have become big business....
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/LUTHER.HTM

There you go, a source (by a major university) that says that these indulgences were granted by the pope and had become big business by the time of Martian Luther. No denying it, the pope knew about it and let it happen.

[JonLanceBarker]

It's still using tradition to prove tradition. Try again...

Here's the most important part of the treatise:

St. Vincent

We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

© source where applicable

Universality, antiquity, consent. Everywhere, always, by all. That's the rule. If most everyone in the Church (the undeniably undivided Church) throughout time and space agreed that a certain doctrine was true, necessary, and affirmed by Scripture, tradition, or both, why should we take fault with it?

[RBerman]

They brought him to Rome because he was teaching heresy, and they wanted him to recant it. This was not just relating to indulgences: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-ways-in-which-luther-had-departed.html

That's true. Indulgences were just what kicked off Luther's work. The Church's bullheaded response to his initial concerns shattered Luther's illusions in the infallibility of the Magisterium and lowered his inhibitions to challenging his superiors on other issues. The Church leaders were used to throwing their weight around to cow dissenters, but this time it didn't work; there were too many Bibles available to check their claims against, and too much dissatisfaction with centuries of magisterial abuse of power. Excommunicating Luther only made him a rallying point for a new power base independent of the Pope. And like that, the Reformation was off and running.

[lilpixieofterror]

Here's the most important part of the treatise:

St. Vincent

We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

© source where applicable

Universality, antiquity, consent. Everywhere, always, by all. That's the rule. If most everyone in the Church (the undeniably undivided Church) throughout time and space agreed that a certain doctrine was true, necessary, and affirmed by Scripture, tradition, or both, why should we take fault with it?

If it is confirmed by Scripture, that is a different story, but if the two don't match up, one must be true and the other false, so what do we do when one contradicts the other?

[Thomas1621]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Johnny

Post is plagiarised from http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...ism/protin.htm or similar.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...orum_copyright
Proper citation is required for any posted copyrighted material. Proper citation includes the author, publisher, and link (if available). If the material is found in a book or other off line resource, be sure to include enough information that another person could track down the original source with ease. A general rule of thumb is to use the same citation one would use in a college essay.

Unless permission is given to the poster by the copyright holder to reproduce the material, the length of the posting must not exceed fair use. There is no hard and fast way to decide at what point posting of material is fair use, but this is a general rule of thumb: Do not post any material exceeding the length of 8 sentences or 1/2 the original. Since this is a rule of thumb, we reserve the right to rule each case on a case by case basis.

If you have specific written permission from the copyright holder granting you permission to post the material on TheologyWeb.com you MUST notify all area moderators 24 hours in advance, furnishing them with a copy of the written permission and material to be posted. Failing to do so may result in the material being removed without notice.

Some copyrighted works have clauses that give readers the ability to fully (or in excesive of fair use) repost their material elsewhere under certain circumstances. Even if you think posting such material to TheologyWeb.com is acceptable under the guidelines, you must seek area moderator approval before posting the material. You must wait for the moderator's answer before posting. This requirement will be enforced fresh on every posting unless waived by an Owner.

These rules were written as an effort by TheologyWeb.com to comply with US and international copyright law. As such, there may be cases where we have to restrict postings due to something we did not legally anticipate or when we feel the posting puts TheologyWeb in danger of entering litigation. These rules will be enforced at the sole discretion of TheologyWeb and posts violating them may be removed without notice. If you have any questions, please contact an area moderator or Owner before posting material. We'll be more than happy to work with you to workout something fair.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[RBerman]

It's a good thing our debates around here are never characterized by that sort of intemperate language!