“No sin can separate us from Him (God), even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

[JRKH]

The problem for me would be that communing at a Catholic or, say, Presbyterian church would be a public statement that I adhere to and believe that ALL of their doctrines and teachings are correct. I couldn’t in good conscience do that. I understand what you’re saying and believe me, I would lean heavily that way myself, but mixing truth with heterodoxy is never a good thing.

I can identify with this as well.
I will interject though that one can accept teachings without fully understanding them. By that I mean, I don’t understand some of the teachings, and on the surface they can be confusing, but I accept that this is an ancient and protected Church. That many, and I mean MANY, great minds have been through all of these things before. If I need to find the answers/explanations I know they are there.

So I can be comfortable with accepting the teachings of the Church precicely BECAUSE she has the authority to teach. Therefore I do not have to remain outside just because there are certain teachings that I might have questions about.

Peace
James

 

[emeraldcoast]

I can identify with this as well.
I will interject though that one can accept teachings without fully understanding them. By that I mean, I don’t understand some of the teachings, and on the surface they can be confusing, but I accept that this is an ancient and protected Church. That many, and I mean MANY, great minds have been through all of these things before. If I need to find the answers/explanations I know they are there.

So I can be comfortable with accepting the teachings of the Church precicely BECAUSE she has the authority to teach. Therefore I do not have to remain outside just because there are certain teachings that I might have questions about.

Peace
James

Hi James!

I understand what you are saying here, but what about those things that honestly we can not except as truth? For example–the CC’s teaching on birth control? Does the church truly teach that if a married couple uses the birth control pill it is a mortal sin? Thank you!

God Bless!

 

[Gara3987]

Of course we know that that is incorrect, even the bible talks about hell;

*“The Son of Man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” *(Matthew 13:41-42)

“If any one abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.” (John 15:6)

“Then He shall say to them also that shall be on His left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go into everlasting punishments: But the just, into life everlasting.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.” (Apocalypse 20:15)

*“And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night.” * (Apocalypse 14:11)

“Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death: a land of misery and darkness, where the shadow of death, and no order, but everlasting horror dwelleth.” (Job 10:21-22)

*“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the angels of His power: In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.” * (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

“If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.” (John 15:6)

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.” * (Mark 9:47)
“Humble thy spirit very much: For the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms.” * (Ecclesiasticus 7:19)
*
“Then He shall say to them also that shall be on His left hand: Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” * (Matthew 25:41)

 

[TriuneUnity]

So I can be comfortable with accepting the teachings of the Church precicely BECAUSE she has the authority to teach. Therefore I do not have to remain outside just because there are certain teachings that I might have questions about.

Peace
James

God bless you, bro.

I agree with what you’re saying when questions about a doctrine arise. I do not claim to have full understanding of the Real Presence, or Baptismal regeneration, but I accept them as that which Scripture, the apostles, and the Church has proclaimed consistently throughout it’s history. So I can affirm that it is true in spite of my understanding.

The issue arises when a doctrine is disagreed with. Part of Holy Communion, for example, is a horizontal relationship with those who receive the Lord with us; for me to go to a Roman Catholic Church and commune would be to affirm those things I believe are not the teachings of the Word or the apostles. I would be saying, “I accept that the Pope is the universal bishop and Vicar of Christ. I believe it is acceptable to hold we are justified by faith+something else. I believe it is acceptable to venerate and invoke saints.” That wouldn’t be fair to the Roman Catholic Church because I don’t hold those things. I would be lying by my actions. It wouldn’t be fair to my own confession because I’d be denying it for a sake of (false) unity.

If I communed in a Presbyterian church, I’d be saying “I believe that Christ is truly absent from this meal. I believe God predestines men unto damnation. I believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect.” Again, same situation.

 

[JRKH]

Hi James!

I understand what you are saying here, but what about those things that honestly we can not except as truth? For example–the CC’s teaching on birth control? Does the church truly teach that if a married couple uses the birth control pill it is a mortal sin? Thank you!

God Bless!

Yes the Church teaches that the use of artificial birth control is intrinsically wrong and a sin. I’m no expert, but I believe that if, as a catholic, one ignores/rejects this and uses artificial birth control, then one is committing a mortal sin.

Being a Catholic is not a question of looking at all of the Church’s teachings and making a personal judgement as to their validity. It is the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the One ancient and True Church because one is convicted of this fact. From this flows acceptance of the Church’s teachings as being from Christ Himself.

The Logic is as follows:
Christ Established **A **Church.
He did so while He still walked among us.
He promised that Hell itself would not prevail against it, and He promised to guide and protect that Church.
The Catholic Church is That Church.
History proves it so.
Since this is what I accept, I must belong to that Church.
Since I must belong to that Church, I must accept Her teachings.

The logic of the above goes from God to me thorough His Church and not the other way around. If I only accept part of the teachings, I am being obstinate to Gods will. I am placing my will above God’s Will. This is contrary to every impulse of what it means to be Christian and submit to God’s Will for us.

Does that mean I understand every teaching? Nope. I accept it on faith.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

God bless you, bro.

I agree with what you’re saying when questions about a doctrine arise. I do not claim to have full understanding of the Real Presence, or Baptismal regeneration, but I accept them as that which Scripture, the apostles, and the Church has proclaimed consistently throughout it’s history. So I can affirm that it is true in spite of my understanding.

The issue arises when a doctrine is disagreed with. Part of Holy Communion, for example, is a horizontal relationship with those who receive the Lord with us; for me to go to a Roman Catholic Church and commune would be to affirm those things I believe are not the teachings of the Word or the apostles. I would be saying, “I accept that the Pope is the universal bishop and Vicar of Christ. I believe it is acceptable to hold we are justified by faith+something else. I believe it is acceptable to venerate and invoke saints.” That wouldn’t be fair to the Roman Catholic Church because I don’t hold those things. I would be lying by my actions. It wouldn’t be fair to my own confession because I’d be denying it for a sake of (false) unity.

If I communed in a Presbyterian church, I’d be saying “I believe that Christ is truly absent from this meal. I believe God predestines men unto damnation. I believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect.” Again, same situation.

Yes I see where there are a number of roadblocks which your backgoround has placed in your way.
However I also see where much of what we seem to disagree on are only “degrees of seperation”.

Perhaps this will help. There are two major churches that I know of that carry true and legitimate Apostolic succession credentials. They are the Latin Rite Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Both of these ancient Churches hold strikingly similar beliefs. Baptism, communion of the saints, etc. True they differ about the primacy of Rome, but on so much more they are nearly identical.
So if one has problems with the Pope, there is still the Orthodox.
So how can one reject these TWO Ancient and revered institutions for the relatively recent doctrines of Protestantism?

For 1000 years the Church was the ONE - Protected by the Spirit. Then came the Great Schism. Now if we assume that the Spirit only protects one of these, which one is it?
If it is the East, then Luther may have had cause to Reject Rome and become Orthodox.
If the Spirit went west, then Luther rejected Christ’s own Church for something else which was not of Christ.
If the Spirit did not protect either one, which is the only way one could justify a new church, then Jesus failed to keep His promise to always protect His Church.

In any event, the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers and their decendants are not in line with the long and consistant teachings of either Church that have clear lineage back to the apostles themselves.

To me this provides sufficient evidence to delve into understanding these teachings with the mind of conforming my belief to them.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

Perhaps this will help. There are two major churches that I know of that carry true and legitimate Apostolic succession credentials. They are the Latin Rite Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Both of these ancient Churches hold strikingly similar beliefs. Baptism, communion of the saints, etc. True they differ about the primacy of Rome, but on so much more they are nearly identical.
So if one has problems with the Pope, there is still the Orthodox.
So how can one reject these TWO Ancient and revered institutions for the relatively recent doctrines of Protestantism?

Because both institutions, in their own ways and manner introduced and accepted many of the same problems that we would have with the Roman communion.

For 1000 years the Church was the ONE - Protected by the Spirit. Then came the Great Schism. Now if we assume that the Spirit only protects one of these, which one is it?
If it is the East, then Luther may have had cause to Reject Rome and become Orthodox.
If the Spirit went west, then Luther rejected Christ’s own Church for something else which was not of Christ.
If the Spirit did not protect either one, which is the only way one could justify a new church, then Jesus failed to keep His promise to always protect His Church.

I think, though, that there is an anachronism occurring here to where the assumption is (and I don’t blame you for this because you’re Catholic of course!) that because the Spirit will protect the Church that that MUST mean, therefore, that said Church is infallible. While historically, Luther didn’t address the Orthodox churches very often, since he was focused on the dispute with Rome, issues such as the infallibility of ecumenical councils, justification as infused righteousness, and the invocation of the saints were still doctrines taught in the east as in the west and we believe these are corruptions of true doctrine which were introduced into the Church long after the apostolic age. From a Lutheran perspective, the Lutheran Reformation was the Holy Spirit insuring that the doctrine of the true church of Christ is maintained.

In any event, the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers and their decendants are not in line with the long and consistant teachings of either Church that have clear lineage back to the apostles themselves.

And this is precisely the issue of dispute within the Lutheran Confessions themselves. Often, Catholics simply don’t realize the level of depth to which Luther, Melancthon, and others delved into the writings of the fathers to make sure that beliefs were made consistent within Church history. The main Confessions of our church include almost as many references to the fathers as to the scriptures.

 

[JRKH]

Because both institutions, in their own ways and manner introduced and accepted many of the same problems that we would have with the Roman communion.

For 1000 years the Church was the ONE - Protected by the Spirit. Then came the Great Schism. Now if we assume that the Spirit only protects one of these, which one is it?
If it is the East, then Luther may have had cause to Reject Rome and become Orthodox.
If the Spirit went west, then Luther rejected Christ’s own Church for something else which was not of Christ.
If the Spirit did not protect either one, which is the only way one could justify a new church, then Jesus failed to keep His promise to always protect His Church.

Well I can only address this part of your post since I am not familiar enough with Luther.

So The Spirit Guided Church, both east and west was abandoned before the Great Schism (ca. 1000 a.d.) by the introduction of the things that Luther and others rejected.
This would mean that the Church was left unprotected for 600 years or more.
Yet how can this be since Jesus Promised He would always protect His Church?

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well I can only address this part of your post since I am not familiar enough with Luther.

So The Spirit Guided Church, both east and west was abandoned before the Great Schism (ca. 1000 a.d.) by the introduction of the things that Luther and others rejected.
This would mean that the Church was left unprotected for 600 years or more.
Yet how can this be since Jesus Promised He would always protect His Church?

Peace
James

Prior to the Reformation the people of God always existed within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church (and still do). It is our confession that wherever the Word of God is preached to one degree or another, and where the sacrament of Baptism is administered rightly, there will be Christians who have faith in Christ. While we do hold that Rome mixed truth with error, she still preached the scriptures and still baptized, so, the Holy Spirit brought people to faith. Wherever believers are, there the true Church is maintained. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by holding to 100% correct doctrine at all times. So the Spirit did insure the true Church existed.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Prior to the Reformation the people of God always existed within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church (and still do). It is our confession that wherever the Word of God is preached to one degree or another, and where the sacrament of Baptism is administered rightly, there will be Christians who have faith in Christ. While we do hold that Rome mixed truth with error, she still preached the scriptures and still baptized, so, the Holy Spirit brought people to faith. Wherever believers are, there the true Church is maintained. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by holding to 100% correct doctrine at all times. So the Spirit did insure the true Church existed.

forgive me, but you mention that the CC mixed truth with err. where is the error and with authority do you declare such a thing?

**B]“Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.” **

 

[JRKH]

Prior to the Reformation the people of God always existed within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church (and still do). It is our confession that wherever the Word of God is preached to one degree or another, and where the sacrament of Baptism is administered rightly, there will be Christians who have faith in Christ. While we do hold that Rome mixed truth with error, she still preached the scriptures and still baptized, so, the Holy Spirit brought people to faith. Wherever believers are, there the true Church is maintained. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by holding to 100% correct doctrine at all times. So the Spirit did insure the true Church existed.

So then, should protestantism go away, what would be the problem with leaning toward the Catholic Church since you don’t have to hold to 100% correct doctrine?

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

So then, should protestantism go away, what would be the problem with leaning toward the Catholic Church since you don’t have to hold to 100% correct doctrine?

Peace
James

You’re describing a situation which is not the same, however. Prior to the Reformation, the average person believed the basics of what the church taught at that time, which was mixed with error and truth, but the average person could rest his head at night knowing that Christ died for his sins, know that he was baptised, hence, justifying faith.

But the situation now, is that we believe that true doctrine is to be found within the Lutheran Church, having known this true doctrine and suddenly the Lutheran church…I don’t know…transforms into a giant bowl of liturgical jello and disappears… I would have conscious knowledge of the errors to which Rome teaches, and would have to embrace what I believe to be false teaching.

 

[Lilyflower]

No sin can separate us from Him (God), even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

Ah I get it, so I can commit genocide and I am still saved!

So there is absolutly no need for me to try to live a good wholesome loving care of neighbour Christian life because whether I am good or downright evil, I am still saved!

 

[JonNC]

Ah I get it, so I can commit genocide and I am still saved!

So there is absolutly no need for me to try to live a good wholesome loving care of neighbour Christian life because whether I am good or downright evil, I am still saved!

Lilyflower,
Did you read the posts on this thread?
Jon

 

[Lilyflower]

Yes I see where there are a number of roadblocks which your backgoround has placed in your way.
However I also see where much of what we seem to disagree on are only “degrees of seperation”.

Perhaps this will help. There are two major churches that I know of that carry true and legitimate Apostolic succession credentials. They are the Latin Rite Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Both of these ancient Churches hold strikingly similar beliefs. Baptism, communion of the saints, etc. True they differ about the primacy of Rome, but on so much more they are nearly identical.
So if one has problems with the Pope, there is still the Orthodox.
So how can one reject these TWO Ancient and revered institutions for the relatively recent doctrines of Protestantism?
For 1000 years the Church was the ONE - Protected by the Spirit. Then came the Great Schism. Now if we assume that the Spirit only protects one of these, which one is it?
If it is the East, then Luther may have had cause to Reject Rome and become Orthodox.
If the Spirit went west, then Luther rejected Christ’s own Church for something else which was not of Christ.
If the Spirit did not protect either one, which is the only way one could justify a new church, then Jesus failed to keep His promise to always protect His Church.

In any event, the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers and their decendants are not in line with the long and consistant teachings of either Church that have clear lineage back to the apostles themselves.
To me this provides sufficient evidence to delve into understanding these teachings with the mind of conforming my belief to them.

Peace
James

My emphasis.

I’ say Amen to that

Blessings and peace

 

[JRKH]

You’re describing a situation which is not the same, however. Prior to the Reformation, the average person believed the basics of what the church taught at that time, which was mixed with error and truth, but the average person could rest his head at night knowing that Christ died for his sins, know that he was baptised, hence, justifying faith.

But the situation now, is that we believe that true doctrine is to be found within the Lutheran Church, having known this true doctrine and suddenly the Lutheran church…I don’t know…transforms into a giant bowl of liturgical jello and disappears… I would have conscious knowledge of the errors to which Rome teaches, and would have to embrace what I believe to be false teaching.

I do see the cunnundrum (sp) here for you then.
However, Since you would still know that Christ died for your sins and that you were baptized, you would still be justified by faith, just as we all are.

I truly respect your position of having troubles with adhering to any faith which you cannot profess completely. In this you are following perfectly the Catechism which states:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

So you see from this that we, you outside the Catholic Church and me inside, both have the same right to question and study and scratch our heads over doctrines and teachings. This is acceptable.
There are teachings of the Church which I do not “Embrace”. By that I mean, as the word implies, I don’t take them to my own. I accept the teachings as valid because:

1. The Church has that teaching authority.
2. I have not the time, or intellect to delve into the issue. and/or
3. I do not wish to limit God, or try to fit His mind and will to mine.

Of course the Church does teach that we, as catholics, have a duty to “form our consciences” properly to the teachings of the Church. Some are more successful at this than others. But by devoting an entire section of the catechism (Part 3 Section 1 Chapter 1 Article 6) containing 26 paragraphs, to the conscience, the Church is clearly demonstrating that the convictions of our consciences are paramount. That God speaks to each in His own way. The same voice but different understandings. Certainly we can see this, just in this thread where we speak nearly the same language, and have nearly the same understandings, but simply place the emphasis on different words, so to speak.

I must say that, in coming back to the Church, I was thrilled when I read this part of the Catechism. Not because it gives me license to reject teachings, but because it gives me the freedom to not understand everything. I don’t have to make all the pieces fit to my mind. I just must Love God and neighbor and Avoid Sin. Thus, what could be the most complicated and difficult of all Christian faiths, becomes the simplest.

Peace
James

 

[gcnuss]

Ah I get it, so I can commit genocide and I am still saved!

Lilyflower,

I don’t recommend trying it. I seriously doubt that God, knowing that you know what a Christian life should be, would look with favor on you if you purposely choose to abandon all that you have been taught. Even then, you may still be forgiven, no matter how great your sin, if you see the error of your ways, repent, and seek his forgiveness, but it is far better not to turn away from him at all.

So there is absolutly no need for me to try to live a good wholesome loving care of neighbour Christian life because whether I am good or downright evil, I am still saved!

That attitude would be extremely dangerous and presumptuous and certainly does not reflect Luther’s theology. Taking that one quote from Luther’s letter to Melanchton and using it as the basis for interpreting Luther does not accurately reflect Luther’s teachings. It could be used to describe Luther’s faith in the immensity of God’s capability for mercy, but not as a statement that one can sin without consequence.

 

[thirdn6]

Lilyflower,

I don’t recommend trying it. I seriously doubt that God, knowing that you know what a Christian life should be, would look with favor on you if you purposely choose to abandon all that you have been taught. Even then, you may still be forgiven, no matter how great your sin, if you see the error of your ways, repent, and seek his forgiveness, but it is far better not to turn away from him at all.

That attitude would be extremely dangerous and presumptuous and certainly does not reflect Luther’s theology. Taking that one quote from Luther’s letter to Melanchton and using it as the basis for interpreting Luther does not accurately reflect Luther’s teachings. It could be used to describe Luther’s faith in the immensity of God’s capability for mercy, but not as a statement that one can sin without consequence.

(Emphasis mine.)

Now you’re saying something we often say about protestants’ quoting the scriptures out of context. Pick and choose! What an irony.

Re Luther’s letter…
So, if someone receives a death threat or a “rape” threat from someone who may have read and misunderstood Luther’s letter, what is he going to do? Disregard the threat? Ask for further explanations?

What are you going to do to prevent the guy from doing his “faith-inspired” demonic plan if you don’t know the guy?

 

[TriuneUnity]

JRKH:

I must say that, in coming back to the Church, I was thrilled when I read this part of the Catechism. Not because it gives me license to reject teachings, but because it gives me the freedom to not understand everything. I don’t have to make all the pieces fit to my mind. I just must Love God and neighbor and Avoid Sin. Thus, what could be the most complicated and difficult of all Christian faiths, becomes the simplest.

I appreciate the way we’ve been able to discuss this, James. It’s a breath of fresh air in between the huffs and puffs of the Pat Madrid v. James White want-to-be’s lol.

You have the Christian freedom to embrace those doctrines that your conscience can accept where it does not contradict the Word of God. I don’t question the salvation of Catholics unless they demonstrate that they do not have faith in Christ; that, ultimately, should be our standard of recognizing one another as brothers and sisters. I do agree that any Catholic can live in simple faith and love of neighbor as can any Protestant. One of the problems with getting into theological discourse is the danger of letting the specifics over ride that simple faith and trust in Jesus’ work for sinners.

Therein lies the danger of churches that teach wrong doctrine; a little yeast leavens the whole lump and can work to destroy faith. I’ve seen this happen many-a-time within both Protestant and Catholic Churches. The Catholic who is so downtrodden with guilt and not being able to measure up to the Law of God because he is taught that he must do so, and so loses faith; The Calvinist who cannot figure out whether he is one of the elect or not, and whether Jesus really died for him, and so loses faith. It’s a dangerous path and that is ultimately why I cannot join a church that I feel teaches wrong doctrine even if some or most of it is right. I largely agree with Rome on the two sacraments and absolution, I agree with Calvinists on justification; but both teach other things that can poison a well already filled with my own sin.

I will never judge a Catholic who trusts in Jesus, but I can and must judge what his or her church teaches; that is my duty as a Christian.

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate the way we’ve been able to discuss this, James. It’s a breath of fresh air in between the huffs and puffs of the Pat Madrid v. James White want-to-be’s lol.

You have the Christian freedom to embrace those doctrines that your conscience can accept where it does not contradict the Word of God. I don’t question the salvation of Catholics unless they demonstrate that they do not have faith in Christ; that, ultimately, should be our standard of recognizing one another as brothers and sisters. I do agree that any Catholic can live in simple faith and love of neighbor as can any Protestant. One of the problems with getting into theological discourse is the danger of letting the specifics over ride that simple faith and trust in Jesus’ work for sinners.

Therein lies the danger of churches that teach wrong doctrine; a little yeast leavens the whole lump and can work to destroy faith. I’ve seen this happen many-a-time within both Protestant and Catholic Churches. The Catholic who is so downtrodden with guilt and not being able to measure up to the Law of God because he is taught that he must do so, and so loses faith; The Calvinist who cannot figure out whether he is one of the elect or not, and whether Jesus really died for him, and so loses faith. It’s a dangerous path and that is ultimately why I cannot join a church that I feel teaches wrong doctrine even if some or most of it is right. I largely agree with Rome on the two sacraments and absolution, I agree with Calvinists on justification; but both teach other things that can poison a well already filled with my own sin.

I will never judge a Catholic who trusts in Jesus, but I can and must judge what his or her church teaches; that is my duty as a Christian.

I do agree with much of what you say here. Of course I pray that you will someday reconcile your doubts and find your way into the Church, but God works with us where we are.

Peace
James