A question for Non-denominationals

[Maranatha33]

St. Thomas More was canonized for not denying the authority of Rome as the Head of the Church which Christ founded with the apostles. He was beheaded because he refused to sign a letter stating that he would follow the the King of England as the Head of the Church and not the Vicar of Christ (The Pope)…And of course the reason the King of England chose to make himself the Head of the Church is because the Church would not allow him to divorce his wife. History verifies this…you can even watch the secular TV show “The Tudors” and understand this. Please do some research (especially on Wycliff) do get a true representation as to what happened during that time…I suggest Henry Graham’s book,
(he was a Presbyterian…then converted) “Where We Got The Bible…Our Debt to the Catholic Church”.

I certainly appreciate the manner in which you addressed my post, but I submit that the disagreement in perspectives maybe from clarification, not from the actual facts.

More may have been canonized for his stance regarding the pope, but I believe that one’s entire life is considered in this process as well. By this I mean that if he (More) was not a Roman Catholic in good stead with the church, would his singular act of loyalty to the pope qualified him for canonization? I submit that the murders he committed by burning alive men and women whose crime was to read the Bible in their own language, should have not only negated his canonization, but excommunicated him as well.

I am not sure why you felt the need to add the historical note on Henry VIII and his battle with the church over his desire for a divorce from Catherine to marry Anne Boleyn, but it has nothing at all to do with my statement regarding Thomas More. I don’t need to watch secular TV to get the historical facts that I have had for many years. (I have already done my research on this, thanks.)

My research on Wycliff seems to be accurate as well. I am not sure of your objection to it, as you don’t state what it is, but please excuse the following “cut and paste” as I believe it directly addresses this topic. From Wikipedia, with no apparent theological bias,

*John Wycliffe (pronounced /ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1324 – 31 December 1384) was an English theologian, lay preacher, translator, reformist and university teacher who was known as an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.
Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common tongue. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wyclif’s Bible.
It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament. Wyclif’s Bible appears to have been completed by 1384, with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe’s assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395. * (emphasis, mine)

Notes: Since Luther finished his translation in 1523 and Tyndale’s last translation was 1534, the “over a hundred years” comment I made, I believe to be accurate. Tyndale was hunted for 11 years before being captured, imprisoned for 500 days, then burned at the stake. (although his cause of death was strangulation, done before the fire was set.) Tyndale’s crime, translating the Bible into the common tongue, was the same as Wycliff and Luther. Interestingly Thomas More, one of the main adversaries of William Tyndale, Said of Tyndale that he “lived the holiest of lives.”

I would like to ask you a non-confrontational question. I stated in my post that the Roman Catholic priorities were 1. The Magisterium, 2. The sacraments, 3. The Bible. I did not come up with this list, but was given it by a moderator on this site. Then I was recently told that this is incorrect. Can you please solve this mystery for me? Thanks…

May God Bless

 

[CWBetts]

The Sacraments are channels of Grace. One of which (Baptism) is normally required for salvation, as it is through the Sacrament that God cleanses an individual of sin, but there are exceptions, but that is a topic for another thread.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. The “binding and loosing” spoken of in Matthew’s Gospel is the conferring of this authority.

The Scriptures are God’s general revelation to the world. However, the Scriptures are not self-interpreting. An interpreter is required (the Magisterum).

In essence, there is a three legged stool: Magisterium, Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. If an of the three legs is missing, you will fall. So you see there is not a neat priority list, the three are interdependent.

 

[mskejj]

I would like to make a few observations:

Being of a denomination holds that there are “church” rules, usually in a Magisterium.

I do not consider myself a protestant. I am not protesting against any denomination per se, even the RCC. I simply believe that The Bible is actually God’s Word, and that is all that my faith need be based upon. Not any particular denominational rules.

The word Magisterium just means “Teaching Office”. Since the New Testament was not written for many years after Jesus’s Death and Resurrection, it was Sacred Tradition (this is the Revelation from the Apostles concerning Jesus’s teaching and ended with the death of the last apostle) which the Church spread via oral means. Sacred Scripture was written for the people and was compiled much later (there were many other writings which were weeded out as not being inspired by God’s word because they went against Sacred Tradition. A writing could not conflict with the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The Church’s Magisterium (directed by the Holy Spirit) interpreted the Scriptures in order to convey what Jesus’s meant to the people. For over 1500 plus years, the Catholic Church copied, preserved and interpreted the Bible. It is Her Book and she alone has the right to interpret it so that error does not enter into God’s words. The problem with Wycliff and Tyndale was that they translated the Bible with errors. It is a fallacy to believe that Wycliff was the first to translate the Bible into English in 1382 (and he was actually a priest…not a lay preacher as Wikipedia says…their information is often times inaccurate) The book by Henry Graham gives references, dates and names of those written in the Saxon tongue (a whole chapter on Vernacular scriptures before Wycliff. So it wasn’t that the Catholic Church didn’t want the people to read Scripture (most couldn’t read and if they could read…they read Latin and before the printing press most couldn’t afford them either)
It was that Wycliff was condemned because of the errors he was pronouncing that were against the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church…many of which Protestant denounce today. And Tyndale…many errors in his book…he wasn’t qualified (scholarly) to make the translations and wasn’t given authority and it was full of Lutheran herasies with Luther’s explanations and notes included in the Bible…and yes it was burned…in order for the Word of God not to be distorted. The Catholic Church compiled, preserved and passed the Bible down for 1500 years without error…Time has justified the action of the Catholic Church that they did they right thing in stamping out his translation but not for the reason that you sited…but to preserve the Word of God without error for future generations (us)
Sorry this was so lengthy…the book is much better at explaining than I am

 

[Holly3278]

I used to attend a fundamentalist Baptist church which called itself “non-denominational”. I do not recall whether or not they considered themselves to be Protestant. I think they did but I am not sure.

 

[CWBetts]

I used to attend a fundamentalist Baptist church which called itself “non-denominational”. I do not recall whether or not they considered themselves to be Protestant. I think they did but I am not sure.

I know at least some Fundamentalists claim they aren’t Protestant but the remnant of some “underground church” persecuted from the beginning.

 

[ChadS]

I know at least some Fundamentalists claim they aren’t Protestant but the remnant of some “underground church” persecuted from the beginning.

That’s the “Trail of Blood” theory which used to have some popularity among Baptists. The theory has long been de-bunked by both historians and theologians. I think there are only a very small sub-set of Baptists that give it credence but the vast majority realize it was nothing but a fanciful re-writing of history.

ChadS

 

[jlhargus]

I used to attend a fundamentalist Baptist church which called itself “non-denominational”. I do not recall whether or not they considered themselves to be Protestant. I think they did but I am not sure.

JL: I would say eight of ten persons who claim not to be Protestant are Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach, especially those who use RCC for the Church. Maranatha sounds very much like one. Most will not admit it though.

 

[1beleevr]

This is quite disingenuous 1beleevr. You have been on CAF for some time now, and you have been repeatedly told that Catholics are not required to wear a crucifix, call the Pope “Holy Father” or “skip meat on Fridays”. This litany represents nothing but baseless calumny on your part.

As for confession, we are not at liberty to jettison portions of the Apostolic Teaching just to accomondate those who want a more “attractive” faith- especially those who pander lies about that faith!

For you, we jettison this Apostolic teaching then to “attract” the next person who is uncomfortable we jettison some more until we have what? The watered down version of the Christian faith we find in the separated ecclesial communities. Jesus commanded us to teach “all that I have commanded”. We don’t have the freedom to avoid part of it.

2Tim.4

[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
[4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Hi, guan; as usual the voice of authority! Unfortunately, there are many more catholics that I have encountered, who embrace the opposite view(post#68), among others! John 20:20-23, does not specifically state that parishioners are to go to confession on a weekly or monthly or even yearly basis, which would render this admonition as an interpretation of said scriptures by the early church fathers! And I have been rebuked on many occasions by radical(or maybe not radical) catholics who practically demand that we noncatholics call the pope holy father! He is just the pope to us, not our Holy Father(God). John 17:11, Jesus addresses His Holy Father, and Matthew 23:9, says,“Call no man on earth your Father, for you have one Father who is in Heaven, which is God!” As for confession, you continue to ignore 1 John 1:9, and James 5:16. Not so much ignore them, but interpret them differently! Believe it or not, guan, I have a lot of respect for you, and many other catholics on this forum, but there are those who send conflicting messages; leaving us to wonder what’s really true!

 

[CWBetts]

Hi, guan; as usual the voice of authority! Unfortunately, there are many more catholics that I have encountered, who embrace the opposite view(post#68), among others! John 20:20-23, does not specifically state that parishioners are to go to confession on a weekly or monthly or even yearly basis, which would render this admonition as an interpretation of said scriptures by the early church fathers! And I have been rebuked on many occasions by radical(or maybe not radical) catholics who practically demand that we noncatholics call the pope holy father! He is just the pope to us, not our Holy Father(God). John 17:11, Jesus addresses His Holy Father, and Matthew 23:9, says,“Call no man on earth your Father, for you have one Father who is in Heaven, which is God!” As for confession, you continue to ignore 1 John 1:9, and James 5:16. Not so much ignore them, but interpret them differently! Believe it or not, guan, I have a lot of respect for you, and many other catholics on this forum, but there are those who send conflicting messages; leaving us to wonder what’s really true!

There was nothing wrong in my post! To say I was wrong, with now matter of refutation or direct response to me is an act of cowardice.

 

[1beleevr]

I see you refused to acknowledge John 20:23. And you obviously have not read Isa 22. I know you are harping on “call no man father” so I must ask you what do you call you biological father? Paul referred to himself as a father to those he was a shepherd of. And what of the references to Abraham as a father? You can choose to use your own interpretation of the Scriptures (which is erroneous) or the interpretation of the CHurch (which is infallible). It is your call.

Not necessarily refused to acknowledge it, just not your interpretation! Read it 5 times, and did not see Jesus saying,“All must go to confession, and confess your sins to a mere mortal man!” My biological father,(may God rest his soul), I called,“Dad.” He was my biological, not spiritual father. God is the only one I can call Holy Father,(jesus tells us in Matthew 23:9, not to call any man on earth Father(I’m sure the capitals were used to emphasize that He was talking of God).And of course Paul was a father figure to those he mentored; and Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation. Speaking of using your own interpretation of the scriptures, how did you get any reference to Holy Father from Isaiah 22? And how can you equate circumcision of the OT with God’s circumcisizing our hearts, in the NT? Isaiah 22:20-25 speak of Eliakim, who also fell; so what are you saying here?

 

[1beleevr]

There was nothing wrong in my post! To say I was wrong, with now matter of refutation or direct response to me is an act of cowardice.

Matthew 7:1-5. guanophore said that catholics do not necessarily believe that one must call the pope holy father, go to confession, wear a crucifix,etc.,etc.,! But you, as evidenced by your posts, believe the opposite! Now don’t lie; it’s there in black and white Cowardice???

 

[CWBetts]

Matthew 7:1-5. guanophore said that catholics do not necessarily believe that one must call the pope holy father, go to confession, wear a crucifix,etc.,etc.,! But you, as evidenced by your posts, believe the opposite! Now don’t lie; it’s there in black and white Cowardice???

I never claimed that any of these things are required, but neither are they to be discouraged, with the exception of confession. Confession is required to be admitted to the Eucharist if one is conscious of mortal sin. And to suggest that you only need to go once a year (or even less frequently implies that one in nearly incapable of sin.

 

[1beleevr]

You know, I was reading this thread, and came to this comment:

I thought Carl was speaking in an exasperated manner, and perhaps perfunctory. Then I went back to see the original:

Then I realized that Carl was right, and you just disregard the Scriptures that do not fit into your preconcevied notions, for example:

Acts.22
[16] And now why do you wait?[SIGN] Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins[/SIGN], calling on his name.’

You see, 1beleevr, the Apostles did not separate the physical from the Spiritual. Baptism is the circumcision made without hands, the spiritual event during which God applies the blood of Christ to the individual. I am confused about your post above, because it seems that you understand baptism to be how the person is joined with Christ in His death and resurrection. If you understand this, then why do you think the spiritual event is separated from the physical?

He was and usually is exasperated; we noncatholics tend to get his goat! Songs as well as writings declare that the blood of Jesus washes away or sins! And then some poo-poo this idea, and say,“No, baptism does that!” So why confess your sins, and ask for forgiveness, if you just have to get baptized? Hey, I don’t understand it any more than any other Christian, but I tend to believe that one confesses their sins to God, admits to being a sinner, and then is baptized! And the baptism picture, is like the burial, and resurrection. But when you come to Christ, you die to your old self! Circumcision in the OT(as I understand it) was a sign of God’s covenant with His people(Jews). In Hebrews, the writer talks of God circumcisizing our hearts!

 

[CWBetts]

He was and usually is exasperated; we noncatholics tend to get his goat! Songs as well as writings declare that the blood of Jesus washes away or sins! And then some poo-poo this idea, and say,“No, baptism does that!” So why confess your sins, and ask for forgiveness, if you just have to get baptized? Hey, I don’t understand it any more than any other Christian, but I tend to believe that one confesses their sins to God, admits to being a sinner, and then is baptized! And the baptism picture, is like the burial, and resurrection. But when you come to Christ, you die to your old self! Circumcision in the OT(as I understand it) was a sign of God’s covenant with His people(Jews). In Hebrews, the writer talks of God circumcisizing our hearts!

Why did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, if after baptism no sin needed to be forgiven? Was Jesus just being superfluous? I mean seriously, do deny the need for the sacrament of confession is to absolutely deny the Scriptures.

 

[1beleevr]

I never claimed that any of these things are required, but neither are they to be discouraged, with the exception of confession. Confession is required to be admitted to the Eucharist if one is conscious of mortal sin. And to suggest that you only need to go once a year (or even less frequently implies that one in nearly incapable of sin.

From the tone of your posts, it would seem that the opposite is true! And why do you believe that we noncatholics do not confess our sins to our Heavenly Father? And why can’t I find the word eucharist in the Bible; guan says it in there! And, I have heard some catholics say they go to confession religiously every week, some say they go as needed, and at least three on this forum have said they only go once a year! Why take God out of the equation, when it comes to confession? And please remember, that whether or not these other things are required or not, we must keep in mind that they are catholic traditions! No one I know, who is not catholic, calls the pope holy father. And Paul also taught Christ resurrected, which is why I choose not to wear a crucifix!

 

[1beleevr]

Why did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, if after baptism no sin needed to be forgiven? Was Jesus just being superfluous? I mean seriously, do deny the need for the sacrament of confession is to absolutely deny the Scriptures.

Personally, I believe that this is one of the most misunderstood set of verses in the Bible! I have read it many times, and still do not understand exactly what it means! Do you believe that the He John refers to in 1John 1:9, is God; or someone else? When James says(5:16), that it is good to confess our sins one to another, he is speaking of among ourselves, or to a priest? And I do not completely deny the scriptures!

 

[CWBetts]

From the tone of your posts, it would seem that the opposite is true! And why do you believe that we noncatholics do not confess our sins to our Heavenly Father? And why can’t I find the word eucharist in the Bible; guan says it in there! And, I have heard some catholics say they go to confession religiously every week, some say they go as needed, and at least three on this forum have said they only go once a year! Why take God out of the equation, when it comes to confession? And please remember, that whether or not these other things are required or not, we must keep in mind that they are catholic traditions! No one I know, who is not catholic, calls the pope holy father. And Paul also taught Christ resurrected, which is why I choose not to wear a crucifix!

It is really easy to find the word Eucharist in the Bible.Eucharist means “give thanks” It is all over the place, and is quite obvious in the Last Supper accounts. I thought all you evangelicals new the Bible better than Catholics!!

Confession does not take God out of the equation. When you confess you are confessing to God, through a priest. It is not even the priest who is truly absolving the sin, but God is, through the instrument of the priest. If it was the priest who was doing the forgiving, then the interior disposition of the priest would determine the efficacy of the sacrament.

The frequency of confession is also a non-argument. Different people go with different frequency. As a general rule, the more conscious someone is of their sin, the more frequently the go. FOr example, the Holy Father confesses daily. In the sacraments the liturgical form (that is how they are celebrated) can, and does, change. In the earliest days of the Church, confession was only once in a lifetime, only for the most serious of sins (like murder or apostasy), and was public, followed by very harsh and lengthy penances. Now all mortal sin must be confessed, and secrecy is assured through the seal of confession.

Yes Christ is resurrected, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with a crucifix. Crosses and crucifixes are those things that serve as reminders that serve to draw us into the mystery of the Passion.

 

[regression]

And Paul also taught Christ resurrected, which is why I choose not to wear a crucifix!

Didn’t Paul also preach Christ crucified? 1 Corinthians 1:23.

 

[1beleevr]

Didn’t Paul also preach Christ crucified? 1 Corinthians 1:23.

Well of course he didAny Christian worth his weight, knows that Christ was crucified, buried(let’s see, they’d have to take Him off the Cross to do that, right?) and of course, the glorious resurrection! Can you even imagine having been Mary Magdalene?

 

[1beleevr]

It is really easy to find the word Eucharist in the Bible.Eucharist means “give thanks” It is all over the place, and is quite obvious in the Last Supper accounts. I thought all you evangelicals new the Bible better than Catholics!!

Confession does not take God out of the equation. When you confess you are confessing to God, through a priest. It is not even the priest who is truly absolving the sin, but God is, through the instrument of the priest. If it was the priest who was doing the forgiving, then the interior disposition of the priest would determine the efficacy of the sacrament.

The frequency of confession is also a non-argument. Different people go with different frequency. As a general rule, the more conscious someone is of their sin, the more frequently the go. FOr example, the Holy Father confesses daily. In the sacraments the liturgical form (that is how they are celebrated) can, and does, change. In the earliest days of the Church, confession was only once in a lifetime, only for the most serious of sins (like murder or apostasy), and was public, followed by very harsh and lengthy penances. Now all mortal sin must be confessed, and secrecy is assured through the seal of confession.

Yes Christ is resurrected, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with a crucifix. Crosses and crucifixes are those things that serve as reminders that serve to draw us into the mystery of the Passion.

Okay, so guanophore confused me by saying the word(or inferring it)eucarist was in the Bible! And I suppose by the holy father, you mean the pope? I don’t know about you, but where I am now in my Christian walk(and have been for some time), I am convicted immediately when I have a sinful thought, or even contemplate committing a sin! When I do sin, the Holy Spirit, is all over me with conviction, and I confess that I was wrong, and thank God for His forgiveness; no priest needed! As far as the crucifix, is concerned, I have always thought it was weird, to see one, and was not sure why! Ayoung catholic man told me, that all Christians should wear one! I said,“Why?” He said,“Well, because it’s the right thing to do!” Once again, I asked him,“Why?” “Never mind,” he said. If you enjoy wearing one, by all means, wear one! I just don’t see the need; nor do I have the desire! And in the Last Suppe, we thank Christ for His ONE sacrifice for ALL time! How can we know the Bible better than y’all, when you supposedly wrote it?