09 July, 2010

Are Lutherans Next? Lutherans Seek Full Communion with Catholic Church - International - Catholic Online

Are Lutherans Next? Lutherans Seek Full Communion with Catholic Church - International - Catholic Online

47 comments:

  1. Great news?...just what we need more anti-female, anti-gay bigots coming into the fold. What is the bright side? A free Catholic Catechism? No, it is about getting more 'MONEY'. Yes, we can use more money to pay off those never ending pesky lawsuits that keep coming up day, after day, after day.

    Let's not forget all those victims that never had a chance to bring lawsuits forward because they were scared into silence for whatever lie they were told by some male authority from the Church. The best lie is: turn the other cheek & offer your suffering for the poor souls in Purgatory.

    I can also add those victims that died because the Church was taking their sweet time with numerous delay tactics. The Roman Catholic Church must like to use the formula of declaring Saints...like wait for 700 or plus years to make a decision to take responsibility for their actions. Very convenient, everybody is dead & there is too much doubt, it must be the devil at work trying to destroy the true Church. These incidents of abuse, it never happened! Just keep believing & increase those prayers & sacrifices! Wink..Wink...Wink!

    These folks coming & others like them would be at ease during a time in history. I could just see them coming with their armful of twigs/sticks (just in case more wood is needed) & go to get the best spot in the front row so they can happily watch Joan of Arc being burn alive for the sake of the Holy Roman Catholic Church teachings! They got the green from God! Wink..Wink.

    Remember folks that when you are entering in the Catholic fold. Do not QUESTIONED the authority of the RCC because you will be told over & over that it is the Roman Catholic way because they have the key to all what God wants us to do & should do here on earth. The Pope & his all male entourage knows what is best for us all. They have that right & what they say goes on earth (binding) God listens to them & agrees that it is alright in heaven (binding). If they make a change (loosen) on earth, God would gladly say it is alright to change it (loosen) because God goes along & agrees with them & it is all fine & dandy in heaven. Wink..Wink!

    All females beware all you can say from now on to all the men is: 'Yes master!' Finally..this is important: 'there is so such thing as a gay priests...wink...wink...wink!

    Lina (smiling)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10 July, 2010

    This article is condescending in many regards, including taking Lutherans into "full communion" into the Catholic Church.

    First of all, I know of no conservative, orthodox, confessional Lutherans who would seek this union. If you are speaking about the liberal wing of Lutheranism, perhaps you may get a few of them as their denomination is in a free fall. They have thrown historical confessional Lutheranism out the door, and are in desperate straits. Do you really want them in the Catholic Church?

    As for more faithful confessional Lutherans, you will have a very difficult time convincing them to "sell their birthright" and join something they have historically opposed for centuries.

    Cliff

    By making headline news out of a few defectors is not the credible thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to make it clear this was a satire I wrote. With a small dose of mini rant. I made a few corrections. It is about some Anglicans & even Lutherans that may be welcomed in full Communion by the Holy Roman Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI.

    Great news? It's just what we need more anti-female, anti-gay bigots coming into the fold. What is the bright side of this? A free Catholic Catechism? No, it is about getting more 'MONEY'. Yes, we can use more money to pay off those never ending pesky lawsuits that keep coming up day, after day, after day.

    Let's not forget all those victims that never had a chance to bring lawsuits forward because they were scared into silence for whatever lie they were told by some male authority from the Church. One of those lies....‘turn the other cheek & offer your suffering for the poor souls in Purgatory.’

    I can also add those victims that died because the Church was taking their sweet time with numerous delay tactics. The Roman Catholic Church must like to use the formula of the declaring Saints...like wait for over 700 years or more to make a decision to take responsibility for their actions. Very convenient, everybody is dead & there is too much doubt about the facts, it must be that devil at work trying to destroy the true Church. These incidents of abuse then, it NEVER happened! Just keep believing & increase those prayers & sacrifices (money can be substituted).
    Wink! Wink! Wink!

    These folks coming & others like them would be at ease during a time in history. I could just see them coming with their (harmful) arms full of twigs/sticks (just in case more wood is needed) & go & get the best spot in the front row so they can happily watch Joan of Arc being burn alive for the sake of the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s teachings! They got the green light from God!
    Wink! Wink! Wink!

    Remember folks, when you are entering in the Catholic fold. Do not QUESTIONED the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, because you will be told over & over that it is the Roman Catholic way because they have that special KEY to all what God wants us to do & should do here on earth. The Pope & his all male entourage know what is best for us all. They have that right & what they say goes on earth (binding) God listens to them & agrees that it is alright in heaven (binding). If they make a change (loosen) on earth, God would gladly say it is alright to change it (loosen) because God goes along & agrees with them. All is well, fine & dandy in heaven.
    Wink! Wink! Wink!

    All females entering their new found home with the Catholic fold please, BEWARE! All you can say from now on to all the men is: 'Yes master!'

    In closing & this is important for you to remind yourself often: ‘There is NO such thing as a gay priest(s)...Wink!..Wink!..Wink !

    Lina (smiling)

    Sincerely...Have a great day & don't forget me in your prayers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous13 July, 2010

    Lina,
    I read your rant but what baffles me is the fact you seem to still identify yourself as a Roman Catholic after all that? I think you need to come to terms with your spirituality and accept the fact your a Protestant of some stripe. Come out of the closet so to speak and find your church. Of the over 30.000 protestant denominations currently available, I'm sure theres a theology that meets your requirements.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous13 July, 2010

    Now Paul was that Nice?

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  6. ""Anonymous said...
    Lina,
    I read your rant but what baffles me is the fact you seem to still identify yourself as a Roman Catholic after all that? I think you need to come to terms with your spirituality and accept the fact your a Protestant of some stripe. Come out of the closet so to speak and find your church. Of the over 30.000 protestant denominations currently available, I'm sure theres a theology that meets your requirements. Cheers Paul""

    1. Sometimes you & God NEED to be enough! That's me 'Cheers Paul'!

    2. So you are baffled? GOOD, I must have struck a nerve with you!

    3. 'I should ACCEPT the fact about being a Protestant of some stripe'.

    No Thank-YOU! Further more, many of my friends are Protestants & they never spoke ill of me about my Catholic faith.

    4. 'I should come out of the closet so to speak & find another church.'

    I don't know at what level your reading comprehension is at. But you must have
    miss that post about what Fr. Tim Moyle said to me, *I am tormented soul*.

    5. You are sure there is a protestant denomination currently available for me?

    Thank you 'Cheers Paul for taking the time from your busy schedule to find another church denomination/place for me.

    What's the matter 'Cheers Paul'...did I bother you from your Big Comfortable Catholic Chair? Maybe YOU should put MORE effort in praying for me.

    6. God works in mysterious ways 'Cheers Paul'.

    7. No hard feelings Cheers Paul! If you somewhat changed your mind about me please go no further in reading my post. If that is not the case & you still are standing by your original post feel free to continue to read.

    8. I still believe you have the right to express your opinion but remember I do have that same right to express mine.

    9. If you still think I should find another Church. Probably a Protestant one.

    10. TAKE OFF EH!!!

    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous13 July, 2010

    It never fails to amaze me that when I suggest someone leave the church when they're clearly disgusted with it and opposed to much of its key dogmas and teachings that they get their backs up and become angry you'd suggest such a thing. If you had a friend and her husband beat her up, you'd probably suggest she get out of that house.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul, I think your problem might be that you think you have the answers to everyone else's problems and you make it plain that you think you're superior in thinking so. Try just listening and empathizing for a change instead of jumping in with "advice" for which no one has asked...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous13 July, 2010

    Hi Paul,

    So you compare your Church to an abusive husband? This strikes me as an apt analogy on so many levels.

    In addition to leaving her husband, I would also counsel a battered wife to press charges and have the brute locked up.

    If only there were a court where we could have all abusers tried, convicted, and punished.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous13 July, 2010

    Martin gets it. He hates the Catholic Church too and I'll bet a beer he's not a member. If I suggested he become one I'm sure an ice cube stands a better chance in hell he'd sign up. I can respect that. Its the protestants, atheists and new age gurus lurking within the fold I have a problem with.

    And Janus, thanks for the advice about feeling superior and jumping in with advice when nobody asked for it. Which begs the question why a new ager feels compelled to spend her time trolling on a Catholic Priests blog doing just that?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul,

    I will say Lina has more insight that some others on here in understanding that she can communicate directly with God. She said "1. Sometimes you & God NEED to be enough! That's me 'Cheers Paul'!"

    One of the biggest problem with yours and many other's point of view is that you believe one needs to come on bended knee to a sinful man to find God. By God's grace Lina seems to have some biblical understanding that a person can actually go directly to God. This is a revelation you have not seen yet but hopefully will some day. This is anathema from the RCC point of view because they then lose their control over people, the main thing that keeps them going. Those who believe the bible know this is false religion where sinful men try to find God and salvation through other sinful men. This is not the religion Jesus taught. Jesus said come unto me... Matthew 11:28

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul,

    Don't belittle 30,000 denominations because many Protestant churches are similar in that they believe the Bible teaches salvation is by faith in Christ, which has been rejected by the RCC.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous14 July, 2010

    Paul, I have trouble understanding your comment, “It’s the Protestants, atheists and new age gurus lurking within the fold I have a problem with".


    Not only is this term condescending and judgemental, it degrades the body of Christ to lump Protestants in with atheists and new age gurus. There is something sadly lacking in your understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, it reeks of "fundamentalism" and is devoid of charity.

    If you are suggesting that the Catholic Church is full of Judas’s, you may have a point there, but please leave the faithful Protestants off of your list.

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And Janus, thanks for the advice about feeling superior and jumping in with advice when nobody asked for it. Which begs the question why a new ager feels compelled to spend her time trolling on a Catholic Priests blog doing just that?"

    One, that wasn't advice I gave you; it was a suggestion. Two, your use of the phrase, "beg the question" is incorrect. Three, I'm not anywhere near being what you call "New Age." And four, I'm an invited guest on this blog -- you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous14 July, 2010

    Paul,

    Sometimes the most charitable thing someone can offer an institution that has lost way is criticsm.

    I find it very instructive that the analogies which appeal to your sense of "Church" are violent, and patriarchal. Here is an interesting exercise - why don't you give us a non-violent and loving analogy of how the RCC should respond to the criticsms of its members.

    Is any questioning permitted by a loving parent of its child?

    Does a true friend not sometimes criticze the actions of another friend?

    Is their no room in your Church for questioning or criticsm? If not, it is surely not because it is perfect in all of its actions. So what then justifies this?

    Just curious Paul (I hope I am allowed to be curious on a Catholic blog).

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous14 July, 2010

    "Not only is this term condescending and judgemental, it degrades the body of Christ to lump Protestants in with atheists and new age gurus. There is something sadly lacking in your understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, it reeks of "fundamentalism" and is devoid of charity."

    Cliff,

    Not saying a Protestant, atheist or newage guru are one in the same. Simply pointing out that they all reject the churches teachings.

    Cheers
    Paul

    And Small Town Guy

    Not sure where you get your info on the Catholic Church but Salvation for a Catholic comes through Christ.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul,

    "Not sure where you get your info on the Catholic Church but Salvation for a Catholic comes through Christ."

    The info comes from RCC Baltimore Catechism No.2 and the book "Instructions in the Catholic Faith" by Parish Priests (a complete course of religious instructions).

    To summarize it, RC salvation comes through sacraments dispensed by sinful men. One of your recent popes said himself men cannot go directly to God. So according to RC teaching, one must go to a man who allegedly has the power to dispense salvation. This is what the RC would like everyone to believe. Check your catechism.

    Another interesting point about this is when confronted about this claimed power, the priest will claim that in confession for example, that forgiveness is coming from God. But then when you look at the catechism, you will find that the RC claims that priests have the power to absolve sins (absolution) by pronouncing a few words.

    This is completely contrary to what Jesus taught in the Bible that salvation is through faith in Him alone. Check you bible, Gospel of John for instance.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous14 July, 2010

    Paul, further clarification is needed on your last statement? "they all reject the churches teaching". I think you are mis-informed somewhat and I am not sure where you get your information from?

    I come from a liturgical, sacramental, orthodox and faithful Protestant denomination. We accept all the ecumenical creeds; believe in the trinity, two natures of Christ, God as creator and sustainer of all life, God's Word as being inerrant. All the hierarchy of beliefs we accept. Now, yes, Mary may be a problem for us, but is that necessary for salvation? Do you expect 100% agreement on secondary doctrine?

    Paul, to sort out differences in our religions is judgemental. This is a domain you should leave to God!

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul,

    "Not sure where you get your info on the Catholic Church but Salvation for a Catholic comes through Christ."

    Are you sure you know what the RCC teaches? I don't think the RC catechism even teaches an RC can have salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Do you know the Council of Trent pronounced an anathema on anyone who claimed salvation is by faith in Christ alone? I think you will find the RCC still embraces this teaching.

    What do the sacraments mean to you? How do you believe a person gets to heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The keys were symbolic of the biblical responsibility of the apostles and in fact all disciples of Christ to preach the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ. The keys did not give any select group of men (priests) the authority to grant salvation or forgiveness to this person or that through the use of sacraments such as Baptism or Confession. This was not what the Bible teaches.

    The keys are simply symbolic of the apostles and disciples commission to preach the gospel message that forgiveness of sin would be received from God when people repented and believe on Christ as their Saviour. There was no earthly mediator or priest involved. This is a far cry from the RCC system of hearing the intimate confessions of men and women in the secret confessional, giving penance, and pronouncing absolution. The New Testament does not teach anything like that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous15 July, 2010

    Wayne you've opened up a big can of worms here that this forum isn't really ideal for adressing such a lengthy list of protest. (with the delays and all it could take me weeks of postings to address the questions you've brought forward already).

    I'll try break it down one issue at a time.

    Confession:
    You've stated we needn't confess our sins to a priest and they have no authority to offer God's forgiveness.
    How do you explain this scripture passage then?.
    Jesus says this to his apostles: "When you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound" (Jn 20:23). Clearly Christ past given that authority to his first priests (the first apostles), no priest can forgive sins on Christ's behalf unless first told the sins by the penitent. How would he make the distinction to forgive or hold them bound if he didn't know the sin of the penitent?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous15 July, 2010

    Hi Wayne

    I guess the next thing I'll tackle is your rejection of the Eucharist. (The body, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ)
    You're certainly not the first to have an issue with this teaching. Jn.Ch 6 Vers. 49-69
    Scripture tells us Christ lost a good portion of his first followers due to this teaching and he even asked the twelve if they would leave as well. Although what Christ had proposed sounded over the top, they chose to stay and accept his teaching. If he were not speaking literally, why did he let the other disciple walk away thinking he did just that and never offered an alternative interpretation, even to the twelve?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul,

    "Confession:
    You've stated we needn't confess our sins to a priest and they have no authority to offer God's forgiveness.
    How do you explain this scripture passage then?.
    Jesus says this to his apostles: "When you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound" (Jn 20:23).

    First, it is relevant to understand the apostles were not priests because they did not offer sacrifices for sin such as conducting Mass. There is absolutely no evidence in the New Testament that they performed any Mass, and there is no evidence in the New Testament that they heard auricular confessions and dispensed penance and absolution.

    It is important to understand what these verses mean; one must not have a preconceived bias toward thinking that the interpretation must fit in with the apostles being priests, because they were not priests in the RC definition of the word "priest". All christians are priests in a different sense. But that is another topic.

    The defense of the confessional rests on the interpretation of mainly two verses, Matthew ch16 vs 19 and the one you quoted, John 20 vs 21-23.

    Firstly, in Matthew 16 vs19, the power Jesus gave to the apostles (the keys) was symbolical and declaritive, and it gave them the authority to preach the Gospel, which has the condition for man's repentance and forgiveness. It was symbolical in that the keys represent the ability to open the door to something, in this case the preaching of the gospel opens the door to repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. The keys also were representative of the declaritive authority, that is, the authority given when Christ commanded his disciples to preach the gospel (or sometimes called the good news) that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name.

    Jesus said to his disciples:
    "And he said to them, 'Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Luke ch24 vs46,47. Saint Josephs NAB

    "To him (Christ) bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sin." Acts 10:43

    So it is evident from these verse, that Jesus did give authority to the apostles symbolized by the keys, but what was this authority they were given? They were to preach the Gospel of repentance and faith in Christ for the remission of sins. These two verses above show clearly that is what the apostles and disciples were commissioned to do. That is what the keys symbolize; nothing more; nothing less.

    So when we come to John ch20 vs 21-23, they too must be interpreted in that light. That is the consistent teaching throughout the New Testament. Through hearing the gospel, sinners who repent of their sins and believe in Christ as their Saviour. By doing that they receive forgiveness of sins. That is the idea in these verses in John ch20:21-23. They are not given some kind of executive power by which they can arbitrarily withhold forgiveness or forgive sins themselves through a confessional system. The idea is that through the preaching of the gospel, men repent, believe in Christ and thereby are forgiven or their sins are remitted. Those who do not repent and believe in Christ as Saviour, do not receive forgiveness or salvation from God. Repentance is a change of heart or attitude toward sin.

    The Bible speaks about the need for repentance, but not penance, which is some token punishment that is given in the confessional for sins confessed to the priest.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul,

    "no priest can forgive sins on Christ's behalf unless first told the sins by the penitent. How would he make the distinction to forgive or hold them bound if he didn't know the sin of the penitent?"

    The New Testament does not teach that people are to confess their sins to a man. The New Testament teaches that we are to go directly to God through Christ to confess our sins. Therefore there is no issue with a priest withholding forgiveness or giving forgiveness. Only God can forgive sins. I have explained how the verse in John 20 refers to the commission to preach the Gospel of repentance, faith, and forgiveness.

    We see in the Acts of the Apostles, when the apostle Peter went to visit Cornelius "Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage. Peter, however, raised him up saying, 'Get up, I myself am also a human being.'" Acts ch10 vs25, 26

    No, Cornelius did not confess to Peter or receive penance or absolution from him. Never once in the New Testament did any apostle ever say "I absolve you" or "your sins are forgive". They always pointed sinners to Christ.

    "For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all." 1 Timothy ch2 vs5. Saint Josephs NAB

    The reason the confessional was brought in was that it greatly increased the power of the pope and the clergy. Priests would learn the secrets of men from Kings down to the lowest classes of society. Not only the sins of individuals, but the secrets of state could be learned. This placed tremendous power in the hands of the papacy. There have been books written on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Paul,

    "I guess the next thing I'll tackle is your rejection of the Eucharist. (The body, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ)"

    The claims of the Eucharist being the literal or physical body of Christ are an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. The verses which I think you are referring to in the Gospel of John chap.6 are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus made it clear further down in that chapter that he was speaking spiritually, not literally of eating his body and blood.

    In response to the disciples murmuring about what He had said, Jesus said "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that give life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." John ch6 vs61b to 63.

    In other words when Jesus was referring to physically ascending to heaven, he made it clear to them that it was not the presence of His physical body which He was speaking about. When He was talking about consuming his flesh and blood, He meant it figuratively or spriritually by believing in Him. Some of His disciples did not understand this. That is why He told them it He was speaking spiritually.

    The eating of Christ's body was purely reference to believing in Christ by faith. The Romish doctrine makes no sense. Acts says God does not dwell in temples made by human hands. One cannot contain God in a "host" and carry him about and dispense him to people. That is not supported.

    Another important point is what Jesus said in John chapter 6 took place two passovers before the last supper. Consider that. John chapter six cannot be referring to the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper was not instituted until the Last Supper, two passovers later.
    And even when it was instituted, Jesus did not mean that He was literally in the bread and wine. He was still physically reclining at the table.
    The Lord's Supper is a memorial done in memory of Christ's broken body and shed blood.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous19 July, 2010

    Paul, wherefore art thou? You can't leave us hanging in mid air after stating some of the things you implied. Dialogue is needed to settle this discussion. Scripture says, reconcile with your brother.

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous23 July, 2010

    Hey Cliff,

    I'm here brother, just trying to digest Wayne's lengthy scripture/theology lesson. Unfortunately his efforts to guide me to the light of Protestantism have fallen flat. I'll try elaborate more if I get the time.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul,

    "Unfortunately his efforts to guide me to the light of Protestantism have fallen flat. I'll try elaborate more if I get the time."

    The light is not Protestantism. Hopefully I am not trying to guide you to the "light of Protestantism". What matters I think is the truth which God has revealed to us in his Word and whether we are worshipping him aright (in Spirit and in truth).

    John chapter one says Jesus is the light of the world. "The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." John 1:9 Saint Josephs NAB. I think it would be fair to say neither Protestanism nor Romanism is the light; only Jesus is the light. Let us keep our eyes focused on Jesus. All others which try to draw the attention to themselves or their own ism are misleading. If I would hope to point anyone anywhere, I would hope it would be to Jesus.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous25 July, 2010

    I agree 100% Wayne on Jesus being the light. Where we differ is on where that truth is being held and whose eyes are not compromised while focusing on Jesus. I'm banking on Roman Catholicism (warts and all) with a 2000 year history right back to the apostles. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church...(sorry Wayne but I don't share your personal interpretation of the Keys, it came across as a weak explanation to make scripture fit your preconceived theology)
    I firmly believe the Roman Catholic Church alone holds the fulness of truth and that its the only church with its eyes fully focused on Jesus Christ. Not to say being a Catholic makes you a better Christian or even gets you to heaven. Heck some of my Protestant friends are far more faithful Christians than are many of my Catholic ones.
    I've met many great people like yourself that seemed to think "me and Jesus" is the way it should be. The problems arise when you get 50 people in a room that subscribe to "me and Jesus" and you start asking for the truth. How do you get to heaven, will we be raptured? is homosexuality natural? Can they marry? Can they be ordained? Should women be ordained? Is birth control moral? Is it a sin to divorce? Can a woman have an abortion? Do you need works as well as faith for salvation? Can you loose your salvation after giving your life to the Lord? etc. etc. etc.
    Survey the 50 people and you'll hear many competing versions of the truth, many totally contradicting one another, hence the 30,000+ different denominations and growing. I don't believe this is what Christ envisioned at all when he prayed that we may all be as one, as He and the Father are one. I don't even think Martin Luther envisioned the moral and theological smorgasbord we see today when he nailed his 95 thesis to the church door. I could engage you further with many more scriptural references to back up the teaching of the church but I know it would be greeted with more, "the lord wasn't speaking literally here, this is what he really meant" or verse such and such says this in which I would likely be the one saying, "you're mis-interpreting the scripture.
    I wish you well Wayne and I pray you and I will meet one day in paradise but taking this battle of the scriptures any further would be futile for both of us.

    God Bless
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wayne:

    The Church believed and practiced from the beginning that they were consuming Christ's Body and Blood when they gathered. Since they did not have lap top computers at the time, and very few could even read and write, they passed on the "tradition" verbally, and it took until the second century for it to be expanded upon by, for example, Justin Martyr (AD 103 to 165), but that in no way diminishes what the people believed and had believed all along.

    In his first Apology written about 150 AD, he said this about Eucharist: "And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."

    If one decides, as you have, to not take Jesus very carefully spoken words literally in this particular instance, and to ignore the tradition of the early Christians, you would have to either conclude that they were all fools, and in fact that many were dying in vain for some fiction.

    Justin died for his beliefs about 165 AD, so he must have been a real fool.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mbrandon,

    Greetings Michael. I just had a look at Justin Martyr on Wikipedia to see what I could find. I would much rather prefer to talk about what the Bible says, but I know the RCC places much stock in what it calls tradition, early church fathers writings, etc. etc. which could encompass a library. In any case, here are a couple of comments on Justin Martyr from Wikipedia.

    "A considerable number of other works are given as Justin's by Arethas, Photius, and other writers; but their spuriousness is now generally admitted."

    Unfortunately that raises real questions about what is and is not really Justin's writing Michael.

    Another comment attributed to Justin:

    Quote "Justin very clearly distinguishes the Son, or Logos, as being an Angel and an Apostle of God, but not the one true God himself, the Maker of all things, as Justin calls him. Justin confers the title of Creator only to the Father in all of his writings. There is no indication of the trinitarian doctrine, or of Christ being the "one true God", as Justin gives this title only to the Father."

    While the English translation of Chapter 128 suggest the appellation of "God" when referring to Christ, the rest of the chapter confirms the beliefs held by Martyr are not in line with this translation:

    •The pre-human Christ is called an Angel, or messenger of God.
    •Christ's existence is the same as that of other angels, separate from God and unique - "numerically distinct".
    In fact, in Chapter 128 of his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin directly refutes the trinitarian explanation, later offered by Tertullian, that Jesus is connected to the Father in the same manner as a sunbeam is to the sun. Justin instead believes Christ's relationship to his Father, God, is more like that of fire. The source fire (God) retains it's size and glory, and the offspring fire it creates (the Son) is an entirely new fire, separate and distinct. Unquote
    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Justin_Martyr#2.

    It seems Justin has some confusing ideas about who Christ was. That is why Reformed/protestant churches consider holy Scripture as the final authority and not the various opinions of early church fathers. His writings apparently had contradictory and unbiblical ideas of who Christ was. This is not someone to be considered as trustworthy to determine basic biblical doctrine. That's why it is important to consider what God has said in the Holy Scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Paul,

    You have avoided addressing my biblical argument that the physical presence of Christ in the "Eucharist" is false. Is this the God you worship which the the apostles did not teach or believe in?
    You are free to believe and do what you wish. But while you are putting your blind trust in a man-made institution, just remember God will hold us accountable for what we believe about Christ. Where we spend eternity is at stake is it not? I prefer to trust what Christ and the apostles said about Himself and salvation.

    The only verse you can come up with is Matthew 16:18 to try to claim Peter was a pope. In fact all through the New Testament nothing is said about Peter being a pope or head of the church. If he really was, why is nothing said about it in the N.T.? Peter was never even in Rome, let alone the false claim by Rome that he had his epicopate for 25 years in Rome. Sorry you are building on sand and you know what Jesus said about anyone who builds on sand instead of the solid rock of Christ and His Word.

    I don't think you can provide a shred of credible proof that the RCC is the true church of Christ, with the Bible or anything else. Claims by fallible and sinful men do not prove anything, yet isn't that exactly what you are trusting in?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous26 July, 2010

    "I don't think you can provide a shred of credible proof that the RCC is the true church of Christ, with the Bible or anything else. Claims by fallible and sinful men do not prove anything, yet isn't that exactly what you are trusting in?"

    I agree Wayne, nothing I could present from scripture or early church fathers would likely convince you and I could likely write a small book making my case. Maybe I can recommend one for you and save me writing a novel.
    You also seem fixated on the idea that we shouldn't listen to fallible, sinful men. If I am to take your advice, why should I accept the gospel according to Wayne? Why should I listen to anyone waving a bible and quoting scripture verses? Why would I trust my own interpretation of scripture since I myself am a fallible, sinful man? I think I clearly point out the fact that "me and Jesus" is clearly a recipe for theological anarchy since a room full of bible only believers can give you smorgasbord of conflicting theology. I don't believe for a minute that this is the model for Christianity Christ desired. I also don't believe he left his sheep without a shepherd.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous26 July, 2010

    Wayne,
    I mentioned recommending a book and I can think of no better book than Crossing the Tiber: evangelical Protestants discover the historical church By Stephen K. Ray
    As a southern Baptist, he shared many of the theological objections you've expressed but was shocked to discover the early church looked nothing like the Christianity he practiced and believed in. Shockingly it was very Catholic.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  35. Paul,

    You said "Why should I listen to anyone waving a bible and quoting scripture verses? Why would I trust my own interpretation of scripture since I myself am a fallible, sinful man?"

    Good questions. So you say why should you listen to anyone quoting scripture and why should you should trust your own interpretation. So who do you trust and why?

    Do you know the apostle Paul commended the Beroean christians for studying Scripture itself to see if what they were taught was true? "These Jews (Beroean christians) were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so." Acts ch17 vs11
    Saint Joseph's NAB

    So these christians did not just accept what someone waving a Bible said. They studied the Scriptures themselves to see if what they were taught was true.

    But, you have already said, why should you trust your own interpretation? Very good question.

    The answer is that God sent the Holy Spirit in the world to teach us.

    Jesus said "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth." Gospel of John ch16 vs 13a

    Here Jesus tells his disciples he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them.

    Also in the epistle of 1 John, the apostle said under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him." 1 John ch2 vs 27.

    Here apostle is telling the believers that the anointing (Holy Spirit) would teach them everything and "is true and not false".

    So when you say you can't interpret scripture, don't you think you are surrending your own mind and conscience to other fallible men instead of God. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to teach us and the apostle John says we have received the Holy Spirit and do not need a man to teach us. The apostle Paul commended the Borean christians for studying the Holy Scriptures.

    Let me ask, were the Borean christians or the disciples Jesus and the apostle John was talking to wrong to trust the Holy Spirit to teach them through the Holy Scriptures?

    Where is the Bible does it say disciples or anyone should listen to a pope, bishop, majesterium, or priest as their final authority on what is true and what is false?

    Who is your final authority?

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous26 July, 2010

    Wayne,

    If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Sola Scriptura Christian, he's doing a lousy job teaching what is true. As I mentioned earlier, there is a veritable smorgasbord of morality and theology as a direct result of a me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit is all we need Christianity. 30,000+ denominations and growing. You seem to be ignoring that fact.
    Since the printing press wasn't invented for 1500 years after Christ. How was a Christian to just wing it with his Bible when he had none and likely couldn't read it if he did?
    When Christ told his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them, he was speaking to the first bishops of the Catholic Church. Peter was our first leader with a line of succession to our current head of the Church, Pope Benedict.
    Also, where in scripture does it say our teaching authority is the Bible ALONE?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  37. Paul,

    You ask some good questions. Volumes could be written on subjects you raise. I will try to scratch the surface. Whether there are actually 30,000 denominations I don't know. I have looked on the church page in the local paper and I see maybe eight churches in a small town. Probably not much more in the yellow pages. But assuming you are correct, many Protestant churches believe basically the same doctrine concerning salvation; that is, that salvation is by faith in Christ. Don't forget Jesus started a spiritual body or church. What is important is a spiritual unity in Christ. Unity based on an earthly top-down controlled structure is not necessarily spiritual unity if it is NOT teaching and believing the faith that the apostles taught.

    Something else to consider. If God intended to save virtually every person that ever walked on earth, why do we have cults, Islam, Budhism, and many other religions? I think there are something like four billion Muslims. The Bible teaches there is a true church alright and a false church. You incorrectly assume that the true church must be a man-made administrative or corporate structure such as the RCC with it's earthly head in Rome. There is no support for this in the Bible. Jesus' church is even described in the Apostle's Creed and it says nothing about a pope or RC church. The word "catholic" simply means universal. That would therefore apply to any true church.
    You feel the RCC is the true church which descended from the apostle Peter. You need to do far more studying, especially of the New Testament because there is no biblical basis for that. Peter was no pope and never claimed to be and never acted like one.

    The fact is the first few centuries of the christian period were dominated by eastern churches. Rome did not come to the fore until after Constantine legalized christianity in the Roman Empire about 312 A.D. After that, political and religious power centralized in Rome and the bishop in Rome or Pope.

    The apostolic church is nothing like the RCC we see today. There were no priests offering sacrifice for sin. That had been done away with when Christ came. Read Paul's epistle to the Hebrews. There were no confessions and absolution, and no purgatory. Those were later inventions.

    There was no Mary and saint worship mentioned in the New Testament. That too came later.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  38. Paul,

    The only head of the church that the New Testament writers (apostles) recognized was and is Christ. (see Ephesians Ch2 vs20)Peter himself taught Christ was the chief corner stone. (1 Peter 2:6) Certainly, the apostles ordained elders (ministers and bishops), but there was no earthly pope mentioned in Scripture. Their function was completely different than that of priests in the RCC. They did not hear confessions and administer absolution and penance. They preached the gospel, taught God's Word, baptised people, and ministered to their spiritual needs. The early church did in fact have copies of the original manuscripts. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and the N.T. was copied into Greek manuscripts. Some of the later century copies remain today and were used as the basis of Bible translations in the Reformation period.

    The RC sacramental system of administering salvation and grace through the sacraments was not known in the apostolic church.

    I never said there is nothing more than Jesus and me. But for salvation, basically, yes, Jesus is the all that is needed, as the thief on the cross discovered. When we believe in Jesus, we accept His Word, the Holy Scriptures as the guide for our lives and worship. The Bible teaches us that we should fellowship or worship with other believers (belong to a true church). In the apostolic days they did this whereever they could meet. It could have been in someone's house and probably was in some cases.

    The gospel of John makes it clear salvation is by faith in Christ. The RCC has added all kinds of things to this and changed the christian religion to something else entirely. Could this be the true church?

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  39. Paul,

    "Also, where in scripture does it say our teaching authority is the Bible ALONE?"

    You can have teachers but what they teach must be based on the Bible.

    Jesus said "Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God." John 8:47

    The prophet Isaiah said "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16,17

    The book of Acts demonstrates that the apostolic christians relied on Scripture.
    Acts 2:16-21; 25-28; 34-36. See the council of Jerusalem Acts ch15. See Acts 17:11; Acts 18:28, 26:22. The standard authority was Scripture, not a pope or council or tradition.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous27 July, 2010

    Wayne,

    Of course we are to look to scripture but not one of those scripture verses make the claim we are to look at scripture ALONE. Its unbiblical to make such a claim.
    In fact tradition is biblically supported and you reject it.

    While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

    Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the TRADITION that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

    To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

    The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  41. Paul,

    "Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the TRADITION that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)."

    What the tradition spoken of here by the apostle was referring to was what the apostles themselves had been teaching. Read the wording. He is only referring to what had been taught by the apostles because they were specially chosen by God and as apostles had the authority to teach what they received directly from God. Later what they taught was written down as Holy Scripture. When the Scriptures were eventually completed, then everything that they taught and that was to be handed down was written in Holy Scripture.

    You say there is nothing to prove that God's revelation only comes from Scripture. Then please explain why the apostle John warns in Revelation chapter 22 not to add or subtract anything in this book (Holy Scripture). If your argument were valid, then the Bible would be an unfinished book. But that is not what these verses in Revelation are saying. Nobody has the authority to claim any revelation from God apart from what is already in Holy Scripture. When the apostles who wrote the Bible all passed away, that was the end of the apostolic age and the end of God's written revelation. There have been no apostles since. The New Testament makes it clear that to be an apostle one had to have been an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. They were also given special miracle-working power that authenticated them being apostles.

    To conclude, the traditions the apostle is referring to in the verses you quoted is talking about the biblical teachings of the apostles themselves.

    To quote your verse again "maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)."

    Notice it is the tradition which were taught by the apostles themselves.

    New revelations from God cannot be added after the Bible is completed as Rome does and as the Mormons do with their Book of Mormon.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous29 July, 2010

    Wayne

    "You say there is nothing to prove that God's revelation only comes from Scripture. Then please explain why the apostle John warns in Revelation chapter 22 not to add or subtract anything in this book (Holy Scripture)"

    That still doesn't say what you want it to.
    The "book" John is referring to is the prophetic book he was writing the final chapters of, Revelation. The Bible as we know it today (a compilation of many books deemed inspired by the early church fathers) didn't even exist when he wrote the Book of Revelations. There were many other books that were considered but didn't make the cut because early church fathers deemed them uninspired.

    But this argument has no point since the Catholic Church has never added to nor taken away from scripture. In fact Luther was guilty of just that. He added faith "alone" to scripture which contradicts scripture itself.

    James CH2

    What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
    If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
    and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
    So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
    Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
    You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
    Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
    You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
    Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
    See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
    And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
    For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

    If faith alone were the standard for entering Heaven John's account of the final judgement in Revelation should have read something like this. "You have believed in my name, enter the Kingdom of Heaven". But it clearly doesn't. He judges the dead based on their faith AND works. I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink. It even goes on to show that some that believed in him were still damned because they had no works and seemed bewildered that they were damned.

    Also, your Bible excludes the "deuterocanonical books" which were part of the canon of scripture dating back to the early church fathers. They were rejected by Luther. Wouldn't that be considered taking away from scripture?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  43. Paul,

    Jesus condemned tradition which was contrary to Scripture (the Old Testament at the time) when He said to the Pharisees and scribes "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts." Matthew ch15 vs8,9

    "You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Matthew 15 vs 6.

    Clearly Jesus condemned tradition in this case.

    Protestants do not reject all tradition. As long as it is in accordance with Scripture, it has truth as it's foundation. We do not give any church the right to invent new doctrine and make decisions contrary to Scripture.

    The fact is it is common in church history that men have made mistakes. RC church councils have contradicted other church councils. Church fathers have contradicted other church fathers. That is why we consider Scripture as the standard or basis of what we believe and confessions are secondary. Only Scripture is
    God-breathed or inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Roman Catholicism on the other hand, believes in two sources of authority, Scripture and developing tradition, with the RCC the judge of what Scripture teaches and therefore the only one who can say authoritatively what the correct interpretation of Scripture is. Therefore the primary source of all doctrine is not the Bible itself, but rather the church which in reality means the church councils, majesteriums, popes, church fathers and doctors of the church. In practice then, the Roman church places tradition above the Bible and in fact, and consequently, it's own authority about the Bible. The ultimate authority is not what God has taught in His Word, but the fallible hierarchy who comprise the church. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a true church because it has substituted the authority of God's Word for the authority of men. So-called oral, unwritten tradition, has in effect destroyed the authority of God's Word in the minds of those who embrace this system.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  44. Paul,

    "But this argument has no point since the Catholic Church has never added to nor taken away from scripture. In fact Luther was guilty of just that. He added faith "alone" to scripture which contradicts scripture itself."

    The word Apocrypha is from the Greek word "apokrupha" meaning hidden things, and was used by ecclesiatical writers to refer to things which were secret or mysterious, unknown in origin, forged, or spurious, or uncanonical.

    The word Apocrypha was not a word invented by Protestants. These books had this name before they were approved by the Council of Trent in the 1500s.

    There is no record Christ or the apostles ever quoted from or recognized the Apocryphal books although they must have known about them.

    The New Testament has 260 quotation from the Old Testament and 370 allusions to passages in the Old Testament, yet not a single reference to the Apocryphal writings by Christ or the apostles. The reason is obvious. They did not recognize them as Scripture. You say Luther rejected them. But the truth is Christ rejected them because they were not Holy Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Paul,

    "You say there is nothing to prove that God's revelation only comes from Scripture."

    Christ used Scripture in His personal conflict with Satan. (Matthew ch4: vs4-10) He did not try to use tradition.

    Christ condemned tradition. "'You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradtion!'" Mark ch7 vs 8,9

    Christ warned that the true mother and brothers are those who listen to and follow the Word of God. (Luke 8:20-21)

    The early christians relied on Scripture, not tradition. There are many examples of this in the New Testament. Acts ch15, Acts ch2. In Romans ch4, the apostle Paul uses Scripture in arguing that Abraham was justified by faith alone, and not by works. (something else the Roman church has rejected and which you try to argue against). But the point is the apostle Paul used the Old Testament scripture to teach salvation is by faith, not tradition. He gives Abraham as an example of this. The apostles used the Word of God to teach their message, not tradition. The apostle Peter makes it clear that disciples are born again through the Word of God. "You have been born anew, not from perishable but imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God, for:

    'All flesh is like grass,
    and all its glory like the flower of the field;
    the grass withers,
    and flower wilts;
    but the word of the Lord remains forever.'
    This is the word that has been proclaimd to you." 1 Peter ch1 vs 23, 24, 25.

    Jesus said those who listen to the Word of God belong to God. "Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God." John 8vs 47.

    Christ and the apostles never talked about tradition as the standard; it was always God's Word which they referred to. The only time tradition was approved of was when the apostle referred to the verbal teachings of themselves which are now set down in the completed Holy Scripture.

    You say how does Rome add to subtract from Scripture. The answer is by her many dogmas that are claimed on the basis of "oral tradition". Stories passed down by word of mouth have proven to be unreliable and false. Claiming truth was passed down through centuries is unreliable but it could easily have been a myth or embellished or changed or invented by someone along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Paul,

    The Apocryphal books were added to the Septuagint between the time the Old Testament was completed and the time Christ (400 A.D. to 0). They were not added to the Hebrew Scriptures, but were added to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Historic writers around that time never gave any indication they were recognized as Holy Scripture. Writers in the centuries prior to 1500 A.D. did not recognize them as Holy Scripture. Christ and the apostles never quoted from them. It was not until the time of the Reformation when Rome had nothing to combat the Reformation preachers claim that Roman doctrines were not supported by the Bible and were unbiblical. Then at that time, the Council of Trent, around 1550 A.D. declared the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. The reason was obvious. It contains some verses which could be used as support for some of the false teachings of Rome such as purgatory and prayers for the dead. They only decreed the Apocrypha as inspired when they could find no other defense for their false doctrines.

    Wayne

    ReplyDelete
  47. Is tradition biblical? The answer is in the Bible.

    "Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, . .."

    Proverbs 30:6, reads, "Add thou not unto his words,. . ."

    This refers to the written word of God.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics