If Protestantism is valid doesn't that mean i can start the Church of aaaa_24@hotmail.com if i disagree with some of the Churches holy teachings which have been around since prior to the death of the last Apostle. And how can they justify interpreting scipture with the Holy Spirit when the Reformation resulted in over 25,000 schimatic churches. As a result its impossible to find more than five beleifs which all "Christians" firmly believe. Is the Holy Spirit of TRUTH abiding in all these demoninations, or is this some sort of relative truth, i.e.the "truth" that is false.

-- mr t (aaaa_24@hotmail.com), June 20, 2004

Answers

Response to Non-catholic clergy

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), June 20, 2004.

Response to Non-catholic clergy

mr t,

what i find interesting is that important little fact that while protestants say that the Holy Spirit will guide ANYONE in reading the bible and finding truth, they restrict the pope from having even that authority. kindof a contradiction right there: anyone can interpret the sciptures EXCEPT the pope and catholics.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 20, 2004.

Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit came He would guide you into all Truth and that the gift was for everyone.

Paul was chosen by God before Paul chose to follow Christ.

It is only possible to know Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Christ chooses us and brings us to Himself.

Of course the Pope and Catholics can interpret scripture but not one of us catholic or non catholic can add to or take away from scripture.

Mr T you may not agree with me - a non Catholic - but please show respect for the person if not their opinions.

-- A Believer (LovedByJesus@Anglican.com), June 21, 2004.

The founder or Protestantism added to AND took away from scripture, inserting words into the text and removing whole books and portions of books as suited his purposes. The Catholic Church, which defined the canon of scripture for all men and for all time, has not added or removed a single word since the canon was originally finalized. This is what "adding to or taking away from scripture" means - changing the text.

If you are trying to force a different meaning upon the text, namely that the Church cannot teach anything that is not specifically spelled out in the Bible, then you are on shaky ground immediately. Since the teachings of various Protestant churches contradict one another, it is immediately obvious that they cannot be in accord with scripture, which does NOT contradict itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 21, 2004.

It's hard to unpack 2000 years of Catholic theology and scriptural pondering as well as 2000 years of Jewish theology and scriptural pondering (and historical development) in one email.

So let's start with the basics: from Genesis we learn that God approves some type of worship more than others (Cain vs. Abel). We see that some men were better at worship than others, that some type of worship was better than others, that a priesthood of some type existed - and not all men were "priests". Thus Abram was a great man, father of all believers etc. But he wasn't a priest! Melchizadek was both king and priest of God most high.

Abel, Noah, and Shem, Abraham and all his decendents worshipped God via animal sacrifice...the shedding of blood. The Jewish people too, through Moses continued this priesthood in the Levites, even though scribes existed who read the "scriptures" and taught from them.

Certainly scripture had a place in the life of the Jewish people. But the Law was more than what was written. You had judges and kings, prophets and priests. God didn't just give the Law and step away: he was still active in the life of his people. And He led them via intermediators - prophets and kings. He works through others...that's how God works.

And worship of God was NEVER reduced to just reading the Law and singing some hymns and then hearing some guy preach. The Jewish religion wasn't based on the local Synagogue but on the Temple, where WORSHIP occured via animal sacrifice.

This sacrifice NORMALLY TOOK PLACE at the Temple but since Moses' time the rite of Passover involved all men in worship via the slaughtering of the lamb... in a way, continuing a priestly function in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Thus, there was always this idea that "the people" were a "priestly people" yet at the same time, some were given the place of being special priests. (Levites).

In Gospel times Jesus fulfilled the Law and also established the New Covenant in his flesh and blood. Since worship demands sacrifice - we have the eternal sacrifice and remembrance of this single sacrifice in the Mass: certainly we read and reflect on the word...but the word has been made flesh to dwell among us and to feed us so that we may have eternal life in HIM.

In these last times, Jesus gave to his apostles - and those on whom they laid their hands (cf. Acts, Timothy and Titus) the role and power to preside over the new Passover, as well as to forgive sins in His name - both actions of priests (cf. Temple worship including both offerings in worship and for forgiveness of sins). Peter talks about both a royal priesthood as well as a special corps of priests "Presbyters".

So there is a big difference between the priestly function and order (ordinis) and "knowing and talking about scripture" (being essentially a scribe). In the time of Jesus and throughout the Acts of the Apostles, you don't see proto-Protestantism. You see a continuation of the Priesthood - a new Covenant, a new Passover celebrated by men ordained to the task.

Not every Christian (Aquila and Priscilla) was given teaching and interpretive authority over scripture! There were apostles and teachers, and deacons and others. Paul was welcomed into the college of apostles at Jerusalem. Timothy and Titus were both placed by Paul in charge of communities and given the gift of the Holy Spirit via the laying on of hands (ordination).

In Acts we see that not everyone had the authority to give the spirit. Thus it's not the Protestant myth that every man has this direct link to God via the bible and everyone is equally endowed with authority and power. If that were so, why would Protestants even bother to have "preachers"?

Sadly Protestantism fails to appreciate this. It conjures up completely unbiblical "either/or" dilemnas as if it is mutually impossible for a people to be "a royal priesthood" and also have priests ordained to the task.

But all this is the natural result in people who follow traditions of men - traditions such as "the bible alone is our guide" (it wasn't sufficient for the Jews, and it wasn't anywhere taught by Jesus to be sufficient "alone") or "faith alone saves you" (neither Jews nor Jesus taught that faith without anything else - without hope or charity, without love or action "saves".)

Protestantism also suffers from the paradoxical problem of supposing that since each man is sufficient with his bible, and thus 'traditions' are suspect, each generation of men have to literally reinvent the wheel of theology. Whereas Catholics have 2000 years of continually built up wisdom and insights, Protestants are doomed to their own little minds. Some of course are brilliant and wise...but if you tried to do science like they do theology you'd still be trying to hammer out Euclidian geometry!

Jesus is the Messiah, hence the High Priest and King. (cf. Hebrews). But of course, to be "high" there has to be "low" priests! St Peter reminded us Christians that we are a priestly people - thus priesthood exists for us. The Old Testament worship always included the shedding of blood - and reading John 6 and Luke and Revelation it's only possible to NOT see the obvious continuation of worship via the Mass (celebrated by priests) by reading the scripture not as it is but through the a-priori "tradition of men" that holds that Catholicism is wrong, thus neither worship nor priests is Christian.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 21, 2004.

If Protestantism is valid doesn't that mean i can start the Church of aaaa_24@hotmail.com if i disagree with some of the Churches holy teachings which have been around since prior to the death of the last Apostle.

{To play Devils Advocate here, this isn't relaly a elgitimate point when slammign Protestants. ( And this thread is nohign tu protestant baiting.) Protestants maintain by and large that the Cathoilic Chruch was NOT the origional chruch and that the teahcigns of the Cahtolic church evolved later, and so do not beleive that the terahcigns of the Catholic chruch nessisarily extend to before the death of the last apostle. Ths if you ARE to argue protestantism, you shoudl at leats learn where they actually stand, unless you jutst want to spout off.}-Zarove

And how can they justify interpreting scipture with the Holy Spirit when the Reformation resulted in over 25,000 schimatic churches.

{Techniclaly innaccurate. Their are only between 5000 and 8000 denominations. Not 25000. Likewise, protestantism dosnt consider the other denominations schimatic, rather, protestantism is based not on which denomination is the oen true chruch, but rather you, as a person, are indovodually saved. The termenology here will forbid dialouge.}-Zarove

As a result its impossible to find more than five beleifs which all "Christians" firmly believe.

{Not so. Basic christainity can be summed uo with beleive in God, Jesus and his teachings, leadign a moral life, nessesity of repentance, and reconciliatoon with God. Theirs 6 thingsall Chrisyains share.}-Zarove

Is the Holy Spirit of TRUTH abiding in all these demoninations, or is this some sort of relative truth, i.e.the "truth" that is false.

{Not really getting it are you?Its not really about the denomination, its about the individual, it is in the indvidual that the Chruch flourishes under Protestant theology.}-Zarove

MR T

mr t, what i find interesting is that important little fact that while protestants say that the Holy Spirit will guide ANYONE in reading the bible and finding truth, they restrict the pope from having even that authority. kindof a contradiction right there: anyone can interpret the sciptures EXCEPT the pope and catholics.

{This isn true either Paul H, Protestnats claim all Christausn can interpret scripture and do not palce a restriction on thr Pope or on Catholics.Protestantism just thinks that the Pope isnt the only one who CAN authoritate on matters of faith and scripture.}-Zarove

-- paul h

The founder or Protestantism added to AND took away from scripture, inserting words into the text and removing whole books and portions of books as suited his purposes.

{We have discussed the conested books before, and the claim tat Luther, the "Founder of protestantism" added text is, in and of itsself, not really true.

You are of course referign to the addition of the word "Alone" to a few places, but a basc undersandign of German will sweo you that wohtout the word alone in those sentences, the sentences dont make sence and are poor grammatic structures. He dodnt add tot he text zn more than the New American Bibel added tot he text by adding words not foiudn in the Hebrew, such as "And" .Words needed for the text to make sence in his native language.}-Zarove

The Catholic Church, which defined the canon of scripture for all men and for all time, has not added or removed a single word since the canon was originally finalized.

{If your goign to play the " Martain Luther added words tot he Bible" game, then yes, the Catholic chruch DID, when it authorised the Jerusalem Bible, and the New american Bible. See my above statement. WAords like "And", " Or" and " Will" ( as in " Will be) where added to make the text readable in engicsh. Just like the word " Alone" was added by Luther to soem places...}-Zarove

This is what "adding to or taking away from scripture" means - changing the text.

{Then all english Bibles, includign the Catholic New maerican bible, do thisz, and are guilty, of changign the text, because they all ad words to clarify sentences.

I just so happen to have a copy on my PC of the Luther Bibel, can you SHOW me ANY change tot he text he made thst IS NOT nessisary to make a German Bibkle that was readable?}-Zarove If you are trying to force a different meaning upon the text, namely that the Church cannot teach anything that is not specifically spelled out in the Bible, then you are on shaky ground immediately.

{What of us who don't use the Luther Bibel and still disagree witht Catholic Teachings? What if the argument is made that the Cahtolci interpretation is wrng? Is this NOT the standard debate in Protestantism?}-Zarove

Since the teachings of various Protestant churches contradict one another, it is immediately obvious that they cannot be in accord with scripture, which does NOT contradict itself.

{But the differences are laregly nominal, and most of the Chruches don't break off based on different teachings.Soem just start up and keep ging.}-Zarove

-- Paul M.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 21, 2004.

The doctrinal differences between various manmade denominations are not "nominal". They are extreme and devastating. They are the reason denominations form in the first place. If a group of people all believe the same doctrines, then there is no reason to divide into two churches. If they are simply unhappy with the administration of their local church, they might break away and form a separate local church (what Catholics would call a separate parish), but it would not be a new denomination, since the doctrinal beliefs would remain the same. Denominations are defined by BELIEFS, and new denominations always form as a result of disagreement over doctrinal issues. And it happens frequently because the one thing all Protestants DO have in common is a system incapable of correctly defining truth, based on the manmade traditions of sola scriptura and private interpretation, two flawed concepts totally foreign to Christianity until recent times. How many centuries will it take before members of the denominational tradition open their eyes and their hearts, and admit the obvious - that it JUST DOESN'T WORK. However, once they admit that to themselves there will be only one course of action they can follow in good conscience - abandonment of denominationalism and return to full and original Christianity. And that prospect is so horrifying that they prefer to keep their blinders on and repeat over and over the Protestant mantra, "the Holy Spirit will guide me to the truth", even as their tradition continues to fragment and collapse all around them. It's sad. The Holy Spirit must grieve.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 21, 2004.

The doctrinal differences between various manmade denominations are not "nominal". They are extreme and devastating.

{Not really. Many denominatiosn began without prior knowledge of other denominatiosn with similar beleifs, and overall the diffeences are nominal, simpley declarig otherwise is not really sufficient.}- Zarove

They are the reason denominations form in the first place.

{Not all. Soem begin independantly of other groups and don;t know of other groups that shae similar beleifs. You simpley assume this, but do realybakc it up.}-Zarove

If a group of people all believe the same doctrines, then there is no reason to divide into two churches.

{what if they beleive the same dotorines but the first origionate dofrm a different background? Are you goignt o tell me overlap can't happen? What if they are similar to another group they idnt break form? What if the only real difference is in the litergy?}-Zarove

If they are simply unhappy with the administration of their local church, they might break away and form a separate local church (what Catholics would call a separate parish), but it would not be a new denomination, since the doctrinal beliefs would remain the same.

{Again, you are beign simplistuc here. what if chruch X and chruch Y beleive the dsame basic doctoriens but did N OT break form each other, but started eahc form different origins? Had it occired to you that teo denominatiosn that are similar may NOT have broken form each other?}-Zarove

Denominations are defined by BELIEFS, and new denominations always form as a result of disagreement over doctrinal issues.

{No, it doesn't. The Chruch of hcrist, for instance, started as art of the restoration movement in the 19th century. Likewise, you seem tot hink that oen Churhc breaks form another, therefore htey are all different. what if one chruch breaks form another, but forms doctorine simlar to another denomination? The tewo woudl be similar to near identical wothout havign brken one from the other. And again, oftent he only real difference s in litergy.}-Zarove

And it happens frequently because the one thing all Protestants DO have in common is a system incapable of correctly defining truth, based on the manmade traditions of sola scriptura and private interpretation, two flawed concepts totally foreign to Christianity until recent times.

{If yu call " Recent" 1900 years... soem groups, notabely he waldenses, had preached scripture reading was suffcient for a long, long time. Likewise, since yor ownview of how denominatiosn form is simlistic and mislead, and your analysis flawed, your reasonign seemign tat all denominatiosn MUJST be different in beelifs becaus of they where similar theey never woudl ahve formed a new denomination ignorign the fac that a new denomination can form easily to be similar wiht an existign denomination tis nto broken from is in and of itsself evidence agaisnt your post as its findation is flawed.}-Zarove

How many centuries will it take before members of the denominational tradition open their eyes and their hearts, and admit the obvious - that it JUST DOESN'T WORK.

{Maybe about the same length of time it will take soem catholcis to really realise that it does seem towork and their is les sinfighting among protestants than you seem to lead peopel to beelive. Sorry, but your post is gibberish at this point and, again, shameless protestant baiting.}-Zarove

However, once they admit that to themselves there will be only one course of action they can follow in good conscience - abandonment of denominationalism and return to full and original Christianity.

{A lot fo Chruches HAVE claimed restoration. Mormosn claim it. Chruhc of christ claims it. Restorationa dn Millertites claim it... and Catholcis claim it, except rather than restored they claim to be the first.

The difficulty is that you asusme failure based on a flawed premise.}-Zarove

And that prospect is so horrifying that they prefer to keep their blinders on and repeat over and over the Protestant mantra, "the Holy Spirit will guide me to the truth", even as their tradition continues to fragment and collapse all around them.

{It hastn really collapses or fragmented,and again,d enominatisn dont get started by simpley breakign form an existign denomination, and not all denominatiosn diffwer wildly...}-Zarove

It's sad. The Holy Spirit must grieve.

{It is sad that you feel the need to put others down who disagree with you by puttign foruth a false premise.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 22, 2004.