Are Protestants forgiven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EMD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Is this what happens when one of us non-Catholics tries to answer one Catholics questions about what we do and why? Once again, to be clear, it is not open for discussion with me.
Unfortunately, yes, this is what happens. Even when we don’t intend for it to happen. Also, a pet peeve of mine, whenever somebody asks for a non-Catholic opinion, a Catholic is always, ALWAYS, the first to post…

BUT, you have been nothing but civil, and I hope you stay and that you continue to know, love, and serve God all the days of your life.
Well, thanks Adstrinity. Thank you also for your kinds words.

Sometimes accidents happen. The good thing is that this can be redirected, and I appreciate that you seem willing to do so.
 
No it does not.

You are reading into the text something that is not there. Catholic-style confession is not
prescribed in that passage.

Up to now, I have done my best to be polite and not be disparaging of Catholic practice. You folks are not convincing me to be more open to adopting your practice – but you are tempting me to get meaner.

I came to this thread to answer the THREAD CREATOR’S QUESTION – and NOT to argue with other folks. I would appreciate it if you would go bother someone else, or better yet no one at all.

If you want to go spill your guts to some person whose business it is not, fine. I am not going to do it.
No one is trying to argue, or convince you of anything. We are merely trying to explain the Catholic interpretation of verses being discussed.

These forums are a place for discussions. If hearing the Catholic perspective explained affects you to the degree of being disparaging or un-charitable, you may want to re-think your participation on these threads. 🤷
 
I know that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod practices both private Confession and Absolution and Corporate Confession and Absolution. The corporate variety is what you see the most though.
 
No it does not.
It explicitly says to confess our sins to one another.
You are reading into the text something that is not there.
Not at all.
Up to now, I have done my best to be polite and not be disparaging of Catholic practice.
And you have.
I came to this thread to answer the THREAD CREATOR’S QUESTION – and NOT to argue with other folks.
That’s fine, you do not have to argue. Neither do I have to keep silent when someone claims scripture doesn’t say something it does say.
I am not going to do it.
That is your choice.
 
I know that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod practices both private Confession and Absolution and Corporate Confession and Absolution. The corporate variety is what you see the most though.
I’ve heard that Lutherans in northern Europe are more inclined to private auricular confession than many American Lutherans. Do you know whether that’s true?
 
No one is trying to argue, or convince you of anything. We are merely trying to explain the Catholic interpretation of verses being discussed.
Really? Okay.

I am not convinced of that.
These forums are a place for discussions. If hearing the Catholic perspective explained affects you to the degree of being disparaging or un-charitable, you may want to re-think your participation on these threads. 🤷
Discussion is cool. However, the words “discussion” and “argument” are not synonyms.

For the record, I welcome Catholics telling me their beliefs and practices.

What I do not welcome are unsolicited arguments and persistent efforts at them. If a person criticizes me as a person for my view, which was done in post #11, and people try to convince me to change my view, it is an attempt at an argument. If I decline, and people refuse to honor that, it is a persistent effort at an argument.

Fact is, I am not comfortable criticizing Catholicism here. It is not that I fear being banned. It is that it would feel unbefitting for me to go to a Catholic facility – website included – and criticize/disparage Catholicism. An argument would require me to do that, and I do not want to.

I am here to help develop understanding between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians – both ways. Arguments are not necessary for that, and all too often get in the way.
 
Really? Okay.

I am not convinced of that.

Discussion is cool. However, my understanding is that discussions and arguments are not synonyms.

For the record, I welcome Catholics telling me their beliefs and practices.

What I do not welcome are unsolicited arguments and persistent efforts at them. If a person criticizes me as a person for my view, which was done in post #11, and people try to convince me to change my view, it is an attempt at an argument. If I decline, and people refuse to honor that, it is a persistent effort at an argument.

Fact is, I am not comfortable criticizing Catholicism here. It is not that I fear being banned. It is that it would feel unbefitting for me to go to a Catholic facility – website included – and criticize Catholicism. An argument would require me to do that.

I am here to help develop understanding between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians – both ways. Arguments are not necessary for that, and all too often get in the way.
I have not tried to critize your view. Please see post #16 and understand I was trying to show you how Catholics interpret scriptures to include confession. I did ask for you to explain your view of a verse and I pointed out who was being addressed by Jesus.

Admittedly, we will probably not agree, but that is short of ‘arguing’, in my opinion. It’s still a discussion, even when two sides disagree. As I am willing to explain my view, I feel free to ask for an opposing view to be explained to me, that I might understand.

Another quick point, developing an understanding does not require criticism. 😉
 
I have not tried to critize your view. Please see post #16 and understand I was trying to show you how Catholics interpret scriptures to include confession. I did ask for you to explain your view of a verse and I pointed out who was being addressed by Jesus. …
Okay.
Please tell me what is meant by, “…and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
It was spoken to the apostles. I assume it applied to them.

As Catholicism holds its bishops to be successors to the apostles, it makes sense that you apply these words to the bishops.

I do not believe the apostles had successors. I believe that these words were to them, and them alone.
 
Okay.
It was spoken to the apostles. I assume it applied to them.

As Catholicism holds its bishops to be successors to the apostles, it makes sense that you apply these words to the bishops.

I do not believe the apostles had successors. I believe that these words were to them, and them alone.
As I told you, I was not trying to convince you of anything. It was only my hope that you saw my example of how a Catholic belief came from an interpretation of scriptures.

In reference to your last statement, I have to ask what your view of Acts 1 is, specifically when Peter referenced the Old Testament scriptures?

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.
Act 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


We know that Peter called for a successor to Judas, according to scriptures. We also see from this passage that Peter had risen up among the brethren and that number had risen to 120. This not only shows a specific replacement for Judas’ bishopric, it shows the number of those in authority of the Church had grown.

Apostolic succession is also supported by other scriptures.

**1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

St. Paul tells us, in other letters, that it was Christ who started the appointments within His Church.

**Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?**

I want to mention again, it is only my desire to show how a Catholic belief comes through an interpretation of scriptures.
 
The apostles were given the power to forgive sins. This was given to them by Christ in His resurrected state on Sunday evening on Easter Sunday.

The apostles were the beginning foundation of Christ’s Church. They had their successors…to withdraw this sacrament from succeeding generations does not make any sense and greatly diminishes Christ’s power to forgive sins through His church. It sounds like Mormonism.

All the faculties Christ gave the apostles were then passed down to their successors, the bishops and priests. The early years of the Church in many places suffered great persecutions and anyone exposed as a Christian was facing the possibility of death. So many of them lived exemplary lives. In the beginning there were those who did get up to acknowledge their sins…but not very often.

After the persecutions ceased then the next hardship came, the invasion of plundering of barbarians that prevented the Church from flourishing.

It was the sensitive Irish who brought about the confession box.

I read last week’s Catholic newspaper about a protestant finally becoming a priest…all the fears he went through from how he had been raised and taught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top