To Pope or Not to Pope?

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by jamesrh, Oct 31, 2018.

  1. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    If we believe God's word is truth, then we believe that it is true across all times and places. It doesn't need context in order to stand, and should require context for its truth to be at least basically understood.
  2. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Here's my pushback. If you do not believe in any intercessors, then you must also not believe in asking friends and family to pray for you. That is intercessory prayer and, in the Protestant understanding of sainthood (which, by the way, is co-correct) is also communing with the saints. Catholics do not pray "to" the saints. That is the misconception. We pray with the saints, just as we pray with friends and family. It is the great cloud of witness spoken of in scripture. And we pray with the because they are those whom we believe with absolute certainty stand now in the direct presence of the Lord.

    I would love to go into Mariology, but that would be the derail of all derails, I fear.

    Regarding the Trinity in scripture: yes, all the pieces are there. The doctrine itself, however, is not. It is manmade based on man's use of reason in interpreting scripture. This is how the doctrines of the Catholic faith, the ones Protestants refuse to believe because they are not found in scripture, were formed - by reason. The solas are just the same, particularly sola scriptura, which is the least biblically supported of the solas, yet it is the basis of all Protestantism. If you're interested, St. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical titled Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  3. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I may have listed single verses above, though I didn't do so exclusively. However, those verses are surrounded by passages. I would encourage you, if you're interested, to go an read those passages, and to take them together to see what sort of narrative they may form. Believe you me, I have no interest in cherry-picking verses to score points, but that doesn't mean that a passage might not reach it's spiritual, logical, or philosophical crescendo with a single verse. Go back and re-read the passages if you really think I was cherry-picking verses.
  4. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I agree with the Major as well.
    You should be careful in lining all of Catholicism behind a single philosophical understanding of the faith. I am a trad - I want my services in the Extraordinary form, my cathedral ad orientem, and my priest performing the rites facing the altar rather than the congregation. The Vatican II crowd, which is dominated by Pope Francis and his buddies, are much more in line with what you suggest all of Catholicism to be. Believe me when I say that Catholicism is quite close to another schism. The abuses, the movement towards a universalist thing, the homosexuality among the priesthood - all of these things are very closely related, but they are not the Church and do not represent what the Church truly is, or what it truly stands for.
    bHero likes this.
  5. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    That quote comes from Chesterton several years before he began converting to Catholicism when he was still an Anglican, which I pointed out immediately following the quote.
    bHero likes this.
  6. cincomom

    cincomom Member

    Language is meaningless without context. It's not math.

    I realize you weren't replying to me, but by context, I was referring to Scripture interpreting Scripture, the whole counsel of God, etc. Historical context wasn't what I had in mind really (though that is important too). As you say, it is all still the Word of God. What I am referring to, to give an easy example: we know it is okay to eat shrimp because Peter was to told to rise, kil, and eat those unclean animals in a vision. The New and Old Testaments need to harmonize and interpret each other. There are doctrines we are still wrestling with as the church universal, but the Holy Spirit will eventually lead us to the right conclusion over time as a church (like with the Trinity).

    My eschatological leanings enable me to be patient about this. All tribes and all nations will know the Lord and the church will grow in maturity, unity, wisdom, and glory. I figure this is the church's awkward teenage phase.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
    PFD, 40A and bHero like this.
  7. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You’ll have to refresh my memory.
  8. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

  9. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Usually, when a quote is posted, that means you agree with it. Is that the case here?
  10. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    It is indeed, but the quote is hardly biased, seeing as it was said about Protestantism, about Protestantism. It would be pretty odd if I used a quote antithetical to the point I intended to make, in order to prove my point.
  11. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    The most accurate thing you’ve said on this thread.
    HornsWin likes this.
  12. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Asking someone to pray for you and praying THROUGH someone to Christ are two separate things. You may not pray "to" saints but I don't know if that's indicative of Catholicism as a majority. I have literally heard Catholic prayers to Mary, Michael, Paul, etc.

    I don't think it's a derailment, but if you don't want to go into it, that's fine. It's one of my biggest beefs with Catholicism but I know it's a touchy subject.

    Unfortunately, your last paragraph is not only false, but a little bit of a reach. The Trinitarian Doctrine (I hate that word BTW) is very, very simple and also very very evident. The Father & The Son are present in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and the Holy Spirit is present in the New Testament. That's the doctrine.

    I've argued Sola Scriptura many times, but it's hard to grasp the idea that the existence of the Bible itself is all the support it needs. It is not explicitly necessary for the Bible to teach "Sola Scriptura", it's self-evident in its existence. But, if I need to, 2 Timothy 3 rebukes Catholic tradition when Paul affirms that the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures not only prepares us for salvation in Christ, but teaches us righteousness and prepares us for our good works. Oral tradition not necessary.

    With all due respect (and I really mean that), I do not regard anything from the Popes as I consider the Papacy in general to be the most corrupt office in the history of the Church.
  13. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I appreciate this, but this is exactly what I was saying to you.

    Intention or not, what you actually did WAS cherry pick verses to support your point. I did read the passages, which is why I believe you cherry-picked the verse. You literally lined out singular verses.
  14. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This is a fair point, however, you lost me in all the liturgy.

    And you're right, Catholicism may be close to a schism but it hasn't happened yet.
  15. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This is waffling.
  16. cincomom

    cincomom Member

    "The Father & The Son are present in both the Old Testament & New Testament, and the Holy Spirit is present in the New Testament. That's the doctrine.:

    Heck, the Holy Spirit is all over the Old Testament, too.. The creation account (hovering over the water), and David and Saul are the first things to spring to mind.
    scout3dave likes this.
  17. scout3dave

    scout3dave Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Sometimes we parse words and intercessory prayer is one of those examples. Protestants and Catholics pray to God and ask others to pray for us. It gets touchy when those people have died, at least once.

    It is an interesting dynamic with the Pope as head of state and head of Church. Pope John Paul was an excellent head of state imo during the rise of Polish independence from the USSR but did nothing to purge the Church of the abusers. Protecting the organization or protecting the body is a tough choice for the leader but one that has to be made in favor of the innocent. For all the good he did, the failure is what will be remembered.
  18. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Regarding 1: Respectfully, you're mistaken. Any prayer to a saint begins with, "St. (so-and-so), pray for us!", proceeded by that thing we need prayer for. We are not asking for St. Augustine to come down from on high to directly intervene, though that can happen. We ask only that they pray for us. This is true for all of the saints, and the angels, including the Theotokos.

    Regarding 2: Another time.

    Regarding 3: If the Trinity is in the Bible, show me where. I have laid out plenty of scriptural evidence to demonstrate Peter as the first pope and, by extension, the rationale for the papacy, but I openly confess that nowhere do the scriptures say, "Peter is the Pope." He was, however, the clear leader of the ancient Church, appointed by Christ himself. This is backed up by scripture, though, again, Christ does not state explicitly - Peter is the head of the Church. It is reasoned together based on what we do have to work with. This is no different from how the doctrine (sorry) of the Trinity came about. All the pieces are there, but the doctrine itself was a hotly contest matter among the ante-Nicean Fathers, as were many other matters that would become Christian doctrine. That is why the creeds were written and recited, for the purpose of clarifying what professing Christians actually believe. But again, this was not settled for hundreds of years. Seeing as there is no mention of the Trinity in the Bible, nor is there a single passage or even a verse that lays the idea out, the way you justify the Trinity being biblical is exactly the same in kind as how Catholics justify what they believe, strictly scriptural though it may not be.

    Regarding 4: As I sit hear re-reading 2 Timothy 3, I see Paul write a lot about the importance of remaining faithful to what he, Timothy, has learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom he, Timothy, has learned it (here Paul is referring to himself), and how from childhood he, Timothy, has been acquainted with the sacred writings, which obviously cannot refer to the Gospels, since they had not been written yet, not the epistles, for the same reason. So the sacred writings here must refer to the Torah. It is the sacred writing which, and I quote, "are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." But again, at this point the scriptures were entirely taught. One had to take what they were being taught on faith that their teacher was providing sound instruction, hence the authority of the tradition. As I've said before, the scriptures we know as the Bible came as a result of Church tradition.

    Cherry-picking would be to take a single verse and use it to support my entire points. I provided dozens of verses and the passages they are found in (it is highly unlikely that the surrounding paragraph(s) will run contrary to the verses, wouldn't you agree?) all driving toward a very few points. That isn't cherry-picking, it is providing scriptural support, which is the very thing Catholics are accused of not doing.

    So, to recap:
    • Catholics don't use the scriptures/don't believe scriptural things
    • A Catholic uses scriptures (plural) to support his claims about the faith
    • The Catholic is cherry-picking.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 7:10 PM
  19. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    IIRC you became a Christian through a Protestant church, so I’m stunned that you agree with this quote.

    “I am firmly convinced that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was as near as any mortal thing can come to unmixed evil.”
  20. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Well, now I’m stunned twice. I need to read everything in this thread to see why you would need to make such a request.
    40A likes this.
  21. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Far be it from a man that he might change his mind as life moves along.
    What request did I make?
  22. PFD

    PFD Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    [Putting this here where it belongs...]

    I've been reading in and meditating on Roman's 14 and 15 for the past couple of weeks, so unity among Christian brothers and sisters is on my mind and my heart.

    Generally speaking, I would say that I have mostly enjoyed this thread, as it has required me to think more deeply about my faith. In my experience, a civil discussion with Believers of other denominations usually produces a more robust faith. Even where we disagree. Often because of where we disagree.

    In law school, I was part of a regular Bible study that included participants from a number of different denominations. We had Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Catholics, and non-denominationalists. Studying the Word with those guys enriched my faith and gave me a new appreciation for brothers and sisters of other denominations.

    Perhaps the best lesson I learned was to respect other Christians' differences when it comes to non-essential elements of the faith, e.g., form and manner of worship, rituals, etc. I know that people who agree with me about the essentials but disagree with me about the non-essentials are still very much my brothers and sisters in Christ. And if they happen to be of the "weak" (i.e., narrow-minded) variety described in Romans 14, then it's my duty to love them graciously as commanded in that chapter. As Christ would.

    To my Protestant brothers like @Halas, I would respectfully caution against being reactionary or becoming defensive in these kinds of discussions. I disagree with a lot of what @HornsWin has to say on this thread, but he seems to be coming from a sincere and non-adversarial place. He recognizes that we are his brothers in Christ, and that's what matters most.

    To @HornsWin, I commend you for taking your faith seriously enough to have studied and informed yourself on some of these historical Church issues. However, taking your comments about "tradition" as a whole, I'm intrigued by your proposition that the Roman Catholic Church most closely resembles the early Church.

    Let's be honest, your average Catholic church and parish looks almost nothing like the realities of the Church in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. There were no fancy buildings or sanctuaries, no ornate sacraments or relics, no formal hierarchy. Instead, they were "house churches," like modern day Believers inhabit in places where Christianity is unentrenched, if not outright outlawed.

    Now, I recognize and acknowledge that what I just said holds true for many, if not most, Protestant churches, too. So, I'm not claiming that modern Protestants have it "right" (or that any one denomination is even capable of having it "right"). I just don't accept the argument that the Roman Catholic Church's organization is somehow more faithful to the early Church.

    I also don't accept the notion that confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness of or sanctification from sin. 1 John 1 says nothing about needing an intermediary to receive God's forgiveness or to be cleansed of unrighteousness. In fact, Romans 8 tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us in prayer.

    My biggest problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that its hierarchical structure and insistence on heavy-handed authoritarianism inherently subjects it to misappropriation by our sin nature. We repeatedly see this exemplified in the Church's history, going back as far as the Crusades and the sale of indulgences or as recently as the widespread sexual abuse and Pope Francis' moral relativism.

    To avoid being hypocritical, we've seen these kinds of failures in Protestant churches, too, including heresies, the evils of televangelism, materialism, and our own rash of sexual improprieties.

    People are sinful, and any organization that elevates people to positions of authority while insulating them from accountability is eventually doomed to stumble and fall.

    I don't base my faith in a Pope, a parish priest, or the clergy at my Protestant church. They are humans, like me, imperfect, like me, and therefore no closer to God than me. I nonetheless recognize that God has placed them in a position of spiritual authority to impart Scriptural wisdom and to serve the needs of our body of Believers.

    Ultimately, I'm enjoying the discussion. Thank you
  23. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    1: With all due respect, we obviously aren't getting anywhere here. But the idea of patron saints kinda refutes your point here.

    2: Not interested at this point. The idea of Mary falls into intercession anyway.

    3: I'm honestly shocked I need to do this, but I'll assume that God the Father is evident to you in the Old Testament, correct? And The Holy Spirit is evident to you in the New Testament also?

    Genesis 15:4-6 - "Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; body, he shall be your heir.”5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.”6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

    There you go. The fact you'd conflate the Trinity with the Papacy, creeds, etc is just confusing to me. Are you that beholden to your dogmas? Those things aren't even in the ballpark.

    4: I hate to tell you this, but that is literally the definition of eisegesis. You have a world view (tradition), and only read the entire passage (hey, better than pulling a single verse) and form it to your worldview. That's literally eisegesis, dude. But it's not too surprising, as your own Pope validated eisegesis via the Second Vatican Council. Also, you're wrong. The Scriptures he's referring to would be the Tanakh, which included all the books through Malachi and all the prophecies of Jesus, which is why Paul goes on to say they make him wise for salvation through Christ.

    Regardless, that's just proper context. Christ specifically warns against tradition. Matthew 15 is the best example of this. He specifically reprimands the Pharisees for honoring tradition over God's commands. Isn't that the crux? To the point above, the Second Vatican Council says to "Read the Scripture within the Living Tradition of the whole Church"(par 113). The succession of authority does not validate this, as the Apostles in Acts (Chapter 17) admonish the readers to check everything they say against the Scriptures. My contention is that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not stand up to scrutiny against the Word. Both Christ and His Apostles warn against this.
  24. bHero

    bHero Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think I'll post some history on Our Lady of Fatima on the paganism thread. Pretty sure that wasn't Mary.
    40A likes this.
  25. 40A

    40A Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Because I think you might ask, and I have some time, I'll go ahead and cite some Catholic tradition off the top of my head that is against the Word:

    - Addressing the leaders of the church as "Father".
    - Rosary beads & repetitive prayer "Hail Marys". BTW as a fun fact, do you know how many other religions used prayer beads prior to the Catholics in the 1000s? How about Islam, for one!
    - The veneration of Mary, which, BTW, Christ specifically rebukes in Luke 11.
    - Withholding the cup/Communion
    - Idols & images
    - Baptism sprinkling
    - Man-Made doctrine AKA from the Pope

    That's just off the top of my head.
  26. bHero

    bHero Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

  27. cincomom

    cincomom Member

    Well said.
  28. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    First, you're getting defensive. Relax.

    1: I wouldn't ask my accountant friend for medical advice. I would ask my doctor friend. A saint's patronage is directly tied to the ministerial work they did during their earthly lives.

    2: Fine

    3: For the record, I am not denying the Trinity. I suspect you might be thinking something along those lines so if you are then let me stop you right there. Also, stop cherry-picking verses, man. Just pony up and show me where God, Christ, the Holy Spirit through either the New Testament writers or else through the prophets lays out the Trinity. Your supporting passage doesn't support the idea of the Trinity. Anyone can quote a couple of verses (cherry-picker!) and say, "See? There it is."

    You're also missing my point entirely. I am not conflating the Trinity with the Papacy. I am only pointing out that the doctrine of the Trinity - it is a doctrine, sorry to tell you - is one that does find biblical support, but was pieced together over centuries. It is, therefore, extrabiblical since it required more than scripture alone to be laid out. This is exactly how Church doctrine, a.k.a. Catholic belief, came to be. If its a legitimate method for what you believe, why isn't it legitimate for me?

    4: I didn't realize that Pope Francis validated eisegesis at Vatican II. Didn't know he had that authority all the way back then. Also, as I have stated before and as has been stated by much smarter and more faithful people than me, Vatican II was sort of a disaster for the Church. It's like a trainwreck that reoccurs every hour on the hour. And if the passage your quote is referring to the Tanakh, please show me where it says that. There are no footnotes in my Bible to make that point. Am I, then, to take any mention of scripture in the New Testament as referring to the Tanakh? That seems awfully convenient that, like Protestants, the Epistle writers would choose to only focus on a very few books on the religious canon while ignoring the rest.

    Yep, Christ does warn against the traditions of men. This is taken up again in Mark 7 and Col. 2. And yet, the Holy Spirit says through the Epistle writers in 2 Thes 15 that believers are to hold fast to sacred traditions. And again in 2 Thes 3, that those who choose not to live in accordance with sacred tradition are to be shunned. In 1 Cor, Paul commends the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions handed down to them. Funny enough, Paul also says in Romans 10 that faith comes through hearing. I won't share the money verse because that would be cherry-picking.

    Finally, you say, "My contention is that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not stand up to scrutiny against the Word. Both Christ and His Apostles warn against this." And yet when I provide scriptural support to dispute your contention, which I have done more than once now, you come back with a couple of verses (cherry-picking) and call it a day.

    What you don't seem to understand, or choose not to, is that what the Catholic Church believes is drenched in scripture. Unlike Protestants, who believe with increasing popularity in the idea that the Holy Spirit stopped engaging with mankind after the Apostolic era, the Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit still does work through mankind.

    And here's the funny thing. You believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I do too. However, by affirming that as a Protestant you are affirming two things that you are also arguing against. First, you are affirming Papal infallability. Peter was the first pope, and he wrote a few books that made it into the Bible as authoritative. If you believe that the Books of Peter are inerrant, then you affirm that though Peter was a sinner, he was capable of being the conduit for the infallible word of the Lord to be spoken and written. If you do believe that, then you believe that, at least twice, Peter was infallible. By affirming the inerrancy of the Bible, you are also acknowledging that a collection of many sinners - the men who were ultimately responsible for the compilation of the Bible as we know it, were also capable of an infallible act. As you believe, the Bible is all that is needed, and it was miraculously put together by sinners, which means that either they all got lucky, we all believe a lie, or they were divinely and perfectly inspired.

    It follows, logically, that if these men were all capable of infallibility, then others thorughout history, if they are open to the Holy Spirit, might also be capable of it.
  29. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think someone has been talking about prayer. So could all y’all put your Jesus-loving heads together and pray for Trump to die in a tire fire?
  30. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Seven charges and not a single verse to support. I'm convinced.

    - Calling priests father
    - The Rosary
    - Veneration of Mary (I guess the archangel erred when he greeted Mary, "Hail, Mary, full of grace!" Silly archangel. He had one job to do)
    - Idols and images (I guess you don't have any pictures of your kids or wife or dog or anyone else on your phone)
    - Baptism
    - A man-made doctrine is a false doctrine, but God gave man the ability to reason things out, which is why so many of the things that Catholics - and Protestants - believe took hundreds of years to clarify.

    Not sure what you mean by withholding the cup/communion, but if you want to go to the mats about the Eucharist, I am obviously happy to do so.
  31. jamesrh

    jamesrh Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    But, I have, in fact, asked numerous accountant friends of mine to pray for me about medical issues. If the saint is simply offering prayer to God by way of being in His presence, what does it matter what their expertise is? They aren't providing anything beyond passing your request on to God. A high school drop out with no skills at all could do that on any issue. All of this implies some expectation of direct assistance from the saint.
    cincomom likes this.
  32. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You're free to choose not to take advantage of their intercession, but don't knock it until you try or at least understand it.
  33. cincomom

    cincomom Member

    "Unlike Protestants, who believe with increasing popularity in the idea that the Holy Spirit stopped engaging with mankind after the Apostolic era..."

    Even frozen chosen very non-charismatic Christians like myself dont believe that. Where are you getting this?
    HornsWin likes this.
  34. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    4 years at a Southern Baptist university and nearly a decade of being a Southern Baptists after that.
  35. scout3dave

    scout3dave Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Ha! I love that term. Are you Lutheran? I don't remember if you said.
  36. cincomom

    cincomom Member

    There's a huge difference between not thinking tongues are normative in this age vs thinking the Holy Spirit has stopped leading the church and being the Comforter of His people. He even helps us pray when we don't know what to pray. I used to be Baptist myself. I don't know any Baptist who has this deistic idea that the Spirit has washed his hands of us and retreated to Heaven. Same planet, different world I guess.
    40A likes this.
  37. cincomom

    cincomom Member

  38. scout3dave

    scout3dave Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    My wife's family is from Minnesota. Good Norske Lutherans. They taught me the term.
  39. HornsWin

    HornsWin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I wish I could say the same, but the final argument I had with the homegroup at my former church, a community church tied to the SBC, was this idea that the Holy Spirit only led through the Apostolic era, after which point everything had been decided to a high enough degree that it was no longer needed as the leader or comforter of the people, or something along those lines.

    Actually, you know what? I am mistaken. It isn't that they believe that the Spirit closed up shop. It's that they believe that miracles ceased following the close of the Apostolic era. Whatever it was, it was something that I profoundly disagreed with. I don't want to worship a God who tells his people to peace out.
  40. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm, but even you can see you joined a very corrupt team. Yet you agree with a man who called the Reformation evil.

    Your request was for us to post verses supporting the Trinity. That’s beyond baffling.

Share This Page