|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
If the Protestant authority is the Bible, and not your authorities' interpretation of the Bible you can't insist that a man isn't a Protestant simply for disagreeing with your authorities' interpretation of the Bible. Why is that so hard to understand ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess you have NO idea how absolutely insane that sounds. You cannot be a Protestant if you deny THE principles of Protestantism, ridicule them as well, and support Roman Catholic ideas which are THE opposition to Protestantism.
It's sort of like saying you are, oh, a Russian, although you don't have a Russian name, you've never been to Russia and you don't speak the language and besides you're on record for hating Russians, but you live in the Russian quarter of some American city or something like that. Why is THAT so hard to understand? I'm asking. I do not get this. To me it is insane beyond insane to say such things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is a message from the Good Is Good thread that is off topic there, an answer to JAR's Message 422:
jar writes: Adolph Hitler thought it was his Christian Duty to kill the Jews. Although I did just post on how Hitler made use of Darwin in his persecution of the Jews, agreeing with jaywill that he considered that a duty of sorts, I also agree that he thought he was doing his "Christian" duty as a Catholic who was strongly supported by the Pope. He was Catholic, and so were Mussolini, Franco and the Croatian murderer of the Serbs, all part of that same period of attempt to reestablish the Holy Roman Reich. Franco's press wrote on May 3 1945, the day Hitler died,
Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lamen t over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of victory. [Reforme, 21st July 1945] Edmond Paris, the author of the book, Secret History of the Jesuits, in which I found this quote, goes on to say: "This funeral oration of the Nazi chief, a challenge to the victorious allies, is voiced by the Holy See itself, under the cover of Franco's press. It is a communique of the Vatican given via Madrid." It's also interesting that Hitler did make use of Catholic examples in his organization. From the same book:
[A] highly placed hitlerian, Walter Schellenberg, former chief of the German counter-espionagE...[said] after the war: "The SS organization had been constituted by Himmler, according to the principle of the Jesuits' Order. Their regulations and the PSiritual Exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly ...The "Reichfuhrer SS" -- Himmlers's title as supreme chief of the SS -- was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits' "General" and the whole structure of the direction was a close imitation of the Catholic Church's hierarchical order. A mediaeval castle, near Paderborn in Westphalis, and called "Webelsbourg" was restored: It became what could be called a SS monastery. A book written about the Nazi regime is described this way by someone who didn't know how right he was according to Paris: "This anthology which brings together texts from the main Catholic theorists of Germany, from Gores to Vogelsang, makes us believe that natiojnal socialism was born out of Catholic idea." Paris goes on: "Another well informed person, the mainspring of the pact between the Holy See and Bderlihne and the pope's secret chamberlain, Franz von Papen, was even more explicit: "The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy." Then he gives some recent official Catholic doctrine to show that the mentality of the Inquisition is still alive and well and thriving in Hitler's time:
Let us, for example, open the "Great Apologetics" by the Abbe Jean Vieujan...[which] is dated "1937." ...
To accept the principle of the Inquisition, one only needs a Chrisdtian metnality, and this is what many Christians lack...the Church has no such timidity. Here's another 20th century statement with a similar message, from 1910, by a R.P. Janvier:
By virtue of her indirect power over temporal matters, should not the Church have the right to expect Catholic States to oppress heretics even to the point of death, so as to suppress them? Here is my answer: 'I do advocate this, even to the point of death!.... Leaning first of all on the practice, then on the teaching of the Church itself; and I am convinced that no Catholic would say the opposite without erring gravely." He also quotes Jesuit general Franz Wernz (1906-1915) "The Church can condemn heretics to death, for any rights they have are only through our tolerance, and these rights are apparent not real Also a Cardinal Lepicier If someone professes publicly to be an heretic or tried to pervert others, by his speech or example, he can not only be excommunicated, but also justly killed... " Please note the above, Tempe, since you tried to convince me that excommunication was all a heretic had to worry about. \And how about Pope Leo XIII, called here a "Jesuit Pope" Anathema on the one who says: The Holy Spirit does not want us to kill the heretic. The spirit of the Inquisition certainly appears to be alive and well at least up to Hitler's time. But I do like this quote from earlier in the same book by a Jesuit Father of the 16th Century:
We will not be judged if we demand the killing of Protestants, any more than we would be asking for the death penalty on theives, murderers, counterfeiters and revolutionaries. I suspect some here may feel the same way. Good night for now.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since when is accepting Protestant authorities as dictating the interpretation of the Bible one of THE principles of Protestantism? I thought that rejection of that sort of authority was one of THE principles of Protestantism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That is such a crazy question I can hardly make sense of it.
"Authority?" It's not that they are authorities, it's that they spelled out what was wrong with Rome and spelled out the Biblical answer to it. It's the BIBLE THAT"s THE AUTHORITY, that's what we get from the Reformation. And the Reformers did some great arguments that are very useful and some BIBLICAL TEACHING we also regard as Protestantism, not the "authorities" themselves. I can't make sense of you. Reallyl. There is no similarity to Rome's authorities and traditions in any of this and I can't fathom at all how you can make such a conncetion. But I have to get soe sleep. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It comes done to some guy telling you what the Bible "really" means, as opposed to reading it for yourself. According to you Protestants should agree with Protestant commentaries even if their own reading disagrees. Isn't that contrary to the founding principles of Protestantism ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
WAIT A MINUTE.
Who said getting rid of Authority was a Protestant prcinicple anyway? Didn't I already answer this. There's no idea of getting rid of Auithority as such, how silly. The Catholic Church is a lying murderous authoirty, THAT we got rid of. We got rid of FALSE authority. Now we have reasonable authority. Luther is an authority but not the way the Pope was. I don't haave to accept everythign luther said, I can disagree with Luther, you can't disagree with the Pope. i can disagree with Calvin, or any of the others. But I find their teachings very edifying and i learn a lot from them. They were expert in the Bible in a way I'll never be. But that doesn't mean I have to believe everything they say as one does the Pope. Where are you getting that idea? I also don't get that we gave up on Tradition but Protestant traditions are not considered to be equal to the Bible as Catholic tradition is. I would have thoguth that was well known. Now I'm about to fall asleep at the keyboard.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It comes done to some guy telling you what the Bible "really" means, as opposed to reading it for yourself. According to you Protestants should agree with Protestant commentaries even if their own reading disagrees. Isn't that contrary to the founding principles of Protestantism ? Huh? I'd say that if your own reading disagrees with the famous commentaries you really do need to reexamine your reading of the Bible. But that doesn't mean that the commentaries are always right, and if your study is equal to theirs and you can defend your reading, fine. But there's a lot of crazy misreading of the Bible by ignorant people, that's why we need pastors and teachers. Yes, the one thing the Reformers did was give us the Bible and tell us to read it. It speaks to each of us personally and we must read it for our own growth. But nobody should trust his own reading of the Bible exclusively. "There is safety in many counselors" says a Proverb. That's why it's good to know what the Reformers said and what Commentators say, and again that's why we have preachers and teachers. They are HELPS, not some kind of pope type authority. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
That's all very well, but you take disagreeing with commentaries as good reason to hold that jar is not a Protestant. Even when the commentary is engaging in rather obvious eisegesis.
And when I see your hatred of a biblical scholarship, both with regard to the text of the Bible and to the authorship (essential to correctly interpreting the Bible by your own preferred method) I really can't take you seriously whenever you talk about the Bible being the primary authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: I would have to disagree that we can never be experts such as these men supposedly were. They possess nothing in the way of intelligence, access to translations, or Holy Spirit that you or I do not also have. This is what irks many about Protestants...that everyone with a Bible claimed to be of equal authority....but its basically true if one is led by the Spirit.
I can disagree with Luther, you can't disagree with the Pope. i can disagree with Calvin, or any of the others. But I find their teachings very edifying and i learn a lot from them. They were expert in the Bible in a way I'll never be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
PaulK just stated the core principle of protestantism. I'll suggest that PaulK is not the source of insanity here.I guess you have NO idea how absolutely insane that sounds. You cannot be a Protestant if you deny THE principles of Protestantism, ridicule them as well, and support Roman Catholic ideas which are THE opposition to Protestantism. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes:
Spelling out the Biblical answer to anything is asserting authority.It's not that they are authorities, it's that they spelled out what was wrong with Rome and spelled out the Biblical answer to it. If the Bible is the sole authority, then one can express one's one reading of that. But one cannot spell out the Biblical answer to anything. The Biblical answer has to be determined by reading the Bible, not by listening to authorities who tell you what the Bible says. Fundamentalist Christianity is a new papacy, due to its practice of asserting authority.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith agrees that one of the key principles of Protestantism is personal interpretation of the Bible.
But Faith also believes that Protestantism possesses additional principles equally foundational to being Protestant. Personal Biblical interpretations lying outside this framework cannot be considered Protestant, because they're consistent with only some core Protestant principles. In other words, it fulfills some but not all of the requirements of Protestantism. My understanding of the counterargument is that if personal interpretation of the Bible is a core principle of Protestantism then any set of beliefs deriving from personal interpretation must be Protestant. If I've got that right then I can only say that while I understand the argument, it seems specious. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But does what Faith thinks have anything to do with the reality?
If someone is a member of a recognized Chapter of the Elks Club is that person an Elk?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have many clubs.
I suppose that technically everyone in the world could be a church of one, hypothetically. Clubs form when two or more agree on something.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024