Protestants Accept the Infallibility of the Catholic Church's Teaching


#1

Proposed: Protestants do in fact accept the infallibility of Catholic teaching on faith and morals.

  1. They accept sacred Scripture from the Catholic Church with the occasional exception of 7 OT books.

  2. They profess the Nicene Creed, which extends beyond Scripture to embrace such traditional dogma of the Magisterium as the Trinity.

  3. They practice at least one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic faith.

  4. They recognize various Catholic saints, thereby validating the discernment of the Church in such matters.

Now, surely some will quibble with one or more of these propositions, but I would like to see the Protestant community which rejects ALL of these.

I would also like to hear any explanation which squares any of the above without a de facto recognition of the Church’s teaching authority.

Discuss, please.


#2

Marcus Grodi on the Journey Home has said before that the only reason why Sola Scriptura made sense to Luther was because he didnt realize how much Catholic teaching/practice were already part of his life. This makes perfect sense because as we see Protestants moving further away from the Catholic Church they started to go down hill very fast and started abandoning/downplaying the Nicene Creed, the importance of the two Sacraments classical Protestants uphold, and most of all totally ignoring the famous Saints of the past.

Worst of all as Marcus has said most Protestants (especially Lutherans) DONT even see themselves as having a REFORM role of the Catholic Church. Now most Protestants have settled into their own ways/traditions and are content with being separate from other Christian bodies. :frowning:


#3

I propose that it may be more accurate to say we accept the infallibility of the Eastern Orthodox teaching on faith and morals. You do the same. You thus have lots of explaining and self examination to do.

:wink:

  1. They accept sacred Scripture from the Catholic Church with the occasional exception of 7 OT books.

So much for accepting the “infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

Ignoring the supposed “infallibility of Catholic teaching” never means accepting it.

  1. They profess the Nicene Creed, which extends beyond Scripture to embrace such traditional dogma of the Magisterium as the Trinity.

Sorry, the Trinity is in the Scriptures.

Secondly, since the Nicene Council were not even Roman Catholics as yourself, you borrow from them no less.

Thirdly, a Council the borrows merely from what came before them says nothing about those who borrow from the very same source.

  1. They practice at least one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic faith.

Again, so much for accepting the “infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

Proving that we accept “infallible” RC teaching by showing where we do not is a very poor argument.

  1. They recognize various Catholic saints, thereby validating the discernment of the Church in such matters.

More of the same.

If some believe that John the Apostle is a saint means that they are borrowing from your church and her “discernment”?

No way. LOL.

Now, surely some will quibble with one or more of these propositions, but I would like to see the Protestant community which rejects ALL of these.

Rejecting one or more supposed “infallible” Catholic teachings by no means shows proof that they, at the very same time, “accept the infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

You basically counter your whole arguement in your own OP.

I would also like to hear any explanation which squares any of the above without a de facto recognition of the Church’s teaching authority.

I suppose that those that believe that Jesus existed…which is “infallibile” Catholic teaching…also stole that from your church?


#4

And you’re Eastern Orthodox as of…?

So much for accepting the “infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

Ignoring the supposed “infallibility of Catholic teaching” never means accepting it.

It would mean rejecting all of the New Testament, certainly. So why don’t Protestants do so?

Sorry, the Trinity is in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not. Wander a bit through the Creed and look for the same descriptions in Scripture.

Secondly, since the Nicene Council were not even Roman Catholics as yourself, you borrow from them no less.

So Rome somehow wasn’t invited to Nicea?

Did somebody not get the memo regarding early Church history? You must have had the world’s worst catechist.

Thirdly, a Council the borrows merely from what came before them says nothing about those who borrow from the very same source.

They tend to quote prior work. Perhaps you should quote something yourself.

Again, so much for accepting the “infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

Proving that we accept “infallible” RC teaching by showing where we do not is a very poor argument.

Atemi, in all this time on the board you haven’t shown any ability to make an argument, much less to discern the merits of one.

More of the same.

More inability to argue on your part.

If some believe that John the Apostle is a saint means that they are borrowing from your church and her “discernment”?

Sure. Canonization is a Catholic process.

Rejecting one or more supposed “infallible” Catholic teachings by no means shows proof that they, at the very same time, “accept the infallibility of Catholic teaching.”

You basically counter your whole arguement in your own OP.

You really don’t understand argumentation, do you?

I’ll give you a little hint: you make a statement, then propose arguments which logically flow from it to reach the conclusion. I’ve given four examples where Protestants rely upon the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. So rather than say, “Oh no we don’t”, or “You don’t teach that”, you ramble on again displaying an inability to form a coherent argument.

I suppose that those that believe that Jesus existed…which is “infallibile” Catholic teaching…also stole that from your church?

No, they may have received the notion that Jesus existed from Josephus.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the Messiah and God. THAT comes through the Catholic Church.

And as with all things that come from the Church, it is a free gift to mankind.

You’re welcome.


#5

I agree with most of what Atemi said.

More appropriately, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have some areas of commonality in teachings of faith and morality. It’s no more true to say we believe Roman Catholicism is right simply because we accept and practice some of the beliefs than it is to say that Roman Catholics believe Protestantism is right because you guys accept and believe some of the things that Protestants teach.

  1. They accept sacred Scripture from the Catholic Church with the occasional exception of 7 OT books.

The RCC didn’t exist as it does now in that day. That church was much closer to the Apostolic Church, and thus, much more valid than what Roman Catholicism has become. Even the very church of Rome wasn’t so far from God’s truth as it is today.

  1. They profess the Nicene Creed, which extends beyond Scripture to embrace such traditional dogma of the Magisterium as the Trinity.

Again, that Roman Catholicism holds a teaching doesn’t mean that everyone else who accepts the same teaching does so because they believe in Rome’s infallibility. If I say that three is less than four in the theoretical realm of mathematics, you might agree. That doesn’t mean that you hold my judgment to be superior, nor that you believe I hold an authority or infallibility. We just happen to agree on those things because we both believe the same thing to be the truth.

  1. They practice at least one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic faith.

These (baptism, marriage, etc.) didn’t start out as “sacraments of the [Roman] Catholic faith”. They were practices of the early church, long before anything resembling Roman Catholicism came about.

  1. They recognize various Catholic saints, thereby validating the discernment of the Church in such matters.

Define “recognize”, please. I’m not clear on what you’re saying.

Now, surely some will quibble with one or more of these propositions, but I would like to see the Protestant community which rejects ALL of these.

Why should there be any such community? You’re assuming that because Protestants reject Roman Catholicism, they reject every teaching it agrees with. That would be the same as saying that there is no longer any truth left in Roman Catholicism, which I’ve never heard any Protestant claim to be the case.

To many Protestants, Roman Catholics have simply, perhaps unknowingly, distorted (in some cases, severely distorted) the truth over the centuries. They still possess some truth, but have lost some as well. Anyone who is seeking truth should have some overlap with others who are seeking the same. And this is certainly the case comparing Roman Catholicism to Protestantism (not to mention Eastern Orthodoxy, etc).


#6

Trinity is not explicitly in the Scripture. That is why JW’s do not believe in the Trinity. I have a few JW friends I can send to your house if you need a confirmation on that.:thumbsup:

Peace,
David


#7

PC Master,

Any belief that the Protestant shares and holds in common with The Catholic Church originates from The Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with protestants being “right.”


#8

Since Roman Catholicism wasn’t “there first” but in fact is only one of many descendants of the apostolic church, your claim is without merit.

Remember also that Protestants hold to many other teachings which they believe to be true, which Rome doesn’t hold. Where is their [perceived] source for these? The apostolic church, of course, is the claimed source, just as it is for all of my current beliefs.

Also remember that you can’t simply trace the origin of an organization to when they broke with Rome without first substantiating the claim that Rome hasn’t changed it’s teachings (something yet to be done on these forums to any level of credibility).


#9

distorted) the truth over the centuries. They still possess some truth, but have lost some as well. Anyone who is seeking truth should have some overlap with others who are seeking the same. And this is certainly the case comparing Roman Catholicism to Protestantism (not to mention Eastern Orthodoxy, etc).You guys who aren’t EO sure like to appeal to a faith community that you don’t even agree with yourselves.

As to the idea that it matters much whether n-Cs agree with us or not is of small consequence. If, as I believe, there is such a thing as verifiable absolute truth, then it matters only slightly whether someone else disagrees since I have satisfied myself as to the veracity of Catholic teaching. Even by the essential standards for general doctrinal belief that the majority of n-Cs espouse they have no valid point of contention. :shrug:


#10

PC Master

The “preceived” source of teachings that Protestants hold that Rome does not would be the traditions of men. In the final analysis if, The Church that Christ founded has ever changed Her teachings on faith or morals, then Christ is not who he claims to be. The burden of proof is on you my friend.

Peace,
David


#11

No, be we do believe that the blind pig will in fact find the acorn occasionally though.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the occasional exception of 7 OT books.” If you mean that only the “occasional” protestant rejects the books than you have lost touch w/ reality.

We do agree on the canon of the NT and do agree on the canon of the OT except for the books your church added. This would be the case regardless of your church’s suposed infallibility.

There are plenty of books written by sola scriptura believing theologians that do an in depth study of the Trinity so it is not necessary to have the gift of infallibility to draw the Trinity out of the scriptures. Again, even if your church never claimed infallibility we would agree on the Trinity.

I believe your church defines 7 sacraments. Sharing a belief in 1, 2, or even 7 sacraments in no way acknowledges your church’s authority.

I’m not even certain that your church believes that this is an area of infallible certainty so I’m not sure why you bring this up.

Let’s hypothetically say your church canonizes JPII and I believe he was saved. Your church’s offical proclamation of this is meaningless to me. It may be interesting but that would be the extent of it.

There were protestants that held to the beliefs you list above well before you church dogmatically defined itself to be infallible.

I am certain you are familiar enough w/ church history to realize that the whole infallibility notion was quite controversial within the Catholic church before it was dogmatically defined.


#12

#13

Baloney! (With apologies for the derogatory use of the luncheon meat.)

You are dead wrong on that. Please provide me an authentic and authoritative Catholic document to that effect. You can’t. None such exists…:shrug:

When did these get declared at “sacrements” according to you? If they have always been viewed as sacrements, that begs the question because we do not think that the first church was Roman, emphasis on the doctrines advocated by Rome, Catholic.

You’re dead wrong here too. The best example is the Eucharistic Real Presence, which I have proved many times. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Some do, but the canonization process of the Catholic Church is irrelevent to most.

Their problem…not ours…


#14

Actually, in my opinion, a more accurate statement would be that the perceived source of teachings that Rome holds that Protestants do not would be the traditions of men. It is these traditions that are a huge part of why I’m not a Roman Catholic.

In the final analysis if, The Church that Christ founded has ever changed Her teachings on faith or morals, then Christ is not who he claims to be.

You’re making too many assumptions with no support in fact…

  1. That Christ says the church he established would never change its teachings on faith or morality.
  2. That the church Christ established was what is now the Roman Catholic Church, a very false notion. Though Christ did not intend to establish an earthly organization, if he had, one could surely say it was the apostolic church. This church has since split many, many times over. All of those who have split (among those is Rome, who holds the most adherents of the lot) can claim apostolic succession, and can trace their lineage back to the apostolic church.

The burden of proof is on you my friend.

No, it isn’t. You’re the one claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that was set up by Christ. Please prove that first. Then prove that a lack of change in church teaching is something that is important.

The burden of proof is on you.

:rotfl: As uncharitable as this may sound, it is essentially right. Even the most pagan-influenced form of Christianity (perhaps Roman Catholicism, in this case) would surely still hold at least some Christian truths.

Let’s hypothetically say your church canonizes JPII and I believe he was saved. Your church’s offical proclamation of this is meaningless to me. It may be interesting but that would be the extent of it.

Yes indeed. For example, I believe Paul ended up in heaven. But it really has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism canonizing him. That both groups believe something doesn’t necessarily mean one got it from the other. They both could have simply gotten the belief from the same source.


#15

That does come across a lot worse than I intended it but I can’t edit it now.


#16

I can’t edit out the above quote but I didn’t mean it quite as bad as it must sound/read. My apologies.


#17

Better check your Christian history again. The earliest letters that discuss the canon include all the Deuterocanonical books.

We do agree on the canon of the NT and do agree on the canon of the OT except for the books your church added

. This would be the case regardless of your church’s suposed infallibility.Again…statement asserted as fact that does not have the substantiation of history.

There are plenty of books written by sola scriptura believing theologians that do an in depth study of the Trinity so it is not necessary to have the gift of infallibility to draw the Trinity out of the scriptures. Again, even if your church never claimed infallibility we would agree on the Trinity

.Odd…there are some n-Cs who do not. Who then is this supposed “we” you refer to? Can you point me to any factual authority that speaks for this supposed “we”?

I believe your church defines 7 sacraments. Sharing a belief in 1, 2, or even 7 sacraments in no way acknowledges your church’s authority.

oooookay…

Let’s hypothetically say your church canonizes JPII and I believe he was saved. Your church’s offical proclamation of this is meaningless to me. It may be interesting but that would be the extent of it.

No surprise there…

There were protestants that held to the beliefs you list above well before you church dogmatically defined itself to be infallible.

Your problem is that the church doesn’t bother to define something until there’s a need…like someone arguing against it.

I am certain you are familiar enough w/ church history to realize that the whole infallibility notion was quite controversial within the Catholic church before it was dogmatically defined.

I rest my case based on the statement I just made above.


#18

:thumbsup: Accepted, and my post amended accordingly.


#19

I often put my foot in my mouth. I guess I like the taste of shoe leather.


#20

Then you have as much in common with me and other faithful Catholics as we can hope for as a start. :wink: :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.