a1working4christ2 catholic answers BANNED

Topper17 · Jan 27, '14, 6:06 pm

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonNC

Trent not being ecumenical has nothing to do with Luther, or the Reformers attending or not attending. The determining factor in the undivided Church that makes a council ecumenical can't be attained today because of the Schism.

Actually Trent not being Ecumenical (to you) has everything to do with Luther and the Protestants not attending. You seem to infer that Trent never could have been Ecumenical because the Eastern Orthodox had left the Church 500 years earlier? This would mean that, according to you, there cannot be an Ecumenical Council, ever again, unless ALL of the 17 EOC denominations AND ALL of the virtually uncountable Protestant denominations participate. We both know that that isn’t going to happen, and also that your position allows you to (illogically) escape admitting the responsibility that the Protestants had (and have) for NOT attending Trent. After all, they could have attended and agreed to abide by the decisions reached, with or without the EOC. But they didn’t and that makes them very responsible for our current division.

On a very related topic, my post number 828 was written entirely to set up the only section which you seem to have not seen. I think that this section and the questions it contains is extremely important because it suggests a way in which our two communions could actually achieve doctrinal unity. In fact, I would suggest that it is the ONLY WAY. That being said, I would like to repost it (in blue) and will await your specific numerical answers.

OK, so you say that you think an Ecumenical Council is a good idea and that you would follow the decisions of such a council. Now though, we get down to the details and the specifics, which are never a strong suit for Protestants. The question now is how to apportion the votes. Again, say that there are 100 votes and let’s say that the only way to achieve a final decision is to have the majority rule, after praying to the Holy Spirit to provide guidance such that a “Holy Decision” is reached. So Jon, how many votes should go to each of the various factions? A numerical answer is necessary of course.

RCC - __________ Votes; EOC - __________ Votes; Lutherans - ______Votes; Non-Lutheran Protestants ________Votes

Please fill in the blanks such the total is 100. BTW, nobody is allowed to pick up their ball and leave when they see that the trend of the Council is going against their position.

As always, God Bless You Jon, Topper

**JonNC** · #**836** Jan 28, '14, 5:23 am

Quote:

=Topper17;11643240]

Actually Trent not being Ecumenical (to you) has everything to do with Luther and the Protestants not attending.

Luther was not able to attend Trent, and the other Reformers feared for their lives if they went.

Quote:

You seem to infer that Trent never could have been Ecumenical because the Eastern Orthodox had left the Church 500 years earlier? This would mean that, according to you, there cannot be an Ecumenical Council, ever again, unless ALL of the 17 EOC denominations AND ALL of the virtually uncountable Protestant denominations participate.

I didn't infer it. I said it flat out. And you are half correct, there cannot be a truly ecumenical council without the patriarchs and bishops of Orthodoxy. That's how the early Church did them. One patriarch, one his own cannot have a truly ecumenical council. I never said anything about protestants. And by the way, I am not Orthodox, and do not pretend to speak for them, but Orthodoxy is not denominational, and it seems to me the accusation that they are is provocative. AFAIK, the Catholic Church also does not refer to them in that way.

Quote:

We both know that that isn’t going to happen, and also that your position allows you to (illogically) escape admitting the responsibility that the Protestants had (and have) for NOT attending Trent. After all, they could have attended and agreed to abide by the decisions reached, with or without the EOC. But they didn’t and that makes them very responsible for our current division.

I haven't refuted the share in the responsibility that the Reformers hold,. The fact is they were in fear of their safety.

Quote:

On a very related topic, my post number 828 was written entirely to set up the only section which you seem to have not seen.

Actually, I ignored it because of the accusation you made against me regarding the use of the term "anti-Christ" in regards the papacy.

Quote:

I think that this section and the questions it contains is extremely important because it suggests a way in which our two communions could actually achieve doctrinal unity. In fact, I would suggest that it is the ONLY WAY. That being said, I would like to repost it (in blue) and will await your specific numerical answers.

You think this is really important?

Quote:

[color="Blue"]OK, so you say that you think an Ecumenical Council is a good idea and that you would follow the decisions of such a council. Now though, we get down to the details and the specifics, which are never a strong suit for Protestants. The question now is how to apportion the votes. Again, say that there are 100 votes and let’s say that the only way to achieve a final decision is to have the majority rule, after praying to the Holy Spirit to provide guidance such that a “Holy Decision” is reached. So Jon, how many votes should go to each of the various factions? A numerical answer is necessary of course.

RCC - __________ Votes; EOC - __________ Votes; Lutherans - ______Votes; Non-Lutheran Protestants ________Votes

Please fill in the blanks such the total is 100. BTW, nobody is allowed to pick up their ball and leave when they see that the trend of the Council is going against their position.

How about I leave it in the hands of those who actually would have the say in the matter, were it to come to that.

Jon

youbigdummy · #**837** Jan 28, '14, 9:24 am

and the debate goes on --Christians believe that Scripture alone is our highest authority, but does that mean it is our only authority? What implications does that have for us when it comes to issues that Scripture doesn't address? Pastor Mark Driscoll investigates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura

http://youtu.be/7tuK2WJUlFM

First, thank you for using the word "some" as a qualifier. For lurkers out there who might think "all" protestants...

Quote:
=ericc;11617548]Among some Protestants they didn't like his "Faith without works is Dead" verse
There may be some, but I think more often it is James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? , and 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone., as they are seen in conflict with the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. I don't see either of them that way because James is speaking to Christians, and is intent on providing a guide on how to live in response to Grace
Quote:
and sometimes they don't like James 5:16 too as it support Catholic sacrament of Confession. Protestants apparently don't like to confess their sins to one another, only to God, although God told them to.
I think many of those you speak of understand confessing to one another as meaning to the ones you have sinned against, or to the whole congregation. They simply don't believe in confession to a priest, missing the point of binding and loosing. Not all protestants take that stand, including Lutherans who practice corporate and private confession to a pastor/confessor

Quote:
They don't like Catholics to pray for one another too, especially the ones living in heaven. I can never figure out why not as those in heaven are proven to be righteous and the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
It isn't that they don't believe in praying for each other. It is just that they don't believe those who have died can hear our prayers. Lutherans make no comment on that, except to say that scripture gives no command, example, or promise regarding invocation of the saints. We do believe they pray for us, however.

Quote:
Seems like a great resource not utilized and miss the chance to network with the rich and famous (in spirit). Isn't it nice when you turn up there and you have tons of friends waiting for you there? Pity.
I think you make a good point here, as it seems many Catholics receive great peace from the practice.

Jon
__________________
It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]...
And no is stating Clement is making a declaration for infallibility. Universal jurisdiction is one thing and infallibility is another. You are getting your wires mixed up and the results usually are bad.
I know the difference, and the sentence I wrote doesn't confuse them. It simply states that Clement does not seem to be acting as a Pope; at least not as the 21st century Roman Church would understand the "developed" sense of that office.

Default Re: Sola Scriptura...

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don't you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles' Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn't. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can't be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn't hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn't leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don't you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles' Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn't. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can't be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn't hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn't leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.
Hi Ericc,
You forgot to mention Luke 15:7 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

There seems evidence that they at least are aware of events on Earth.

Jon

a1working4christ2 catholic answers BANNED

Friday, March 14, 2014

BANNED catholic answers --Sola Scriptura... and the debate goes on --Christians believe that Scripture alone is our highest authority, but does that mean it is our only authority?