big difference between Catholics and Protestants

[jlhargus]

Alix: if marriage is a sacrament or a covenant…I don’t honestly care about it that much

JL: I could be wrong, but isn’t a sacrament the oath and ritual sign that make a covenant binding? Gn9:17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” (rainbow) Gn15:17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-

 

[guanophore]

In Romans 15:20 Paul says he doesn’t want to build on another mans foundation referring to Peter who built the Church in Rome.

No, rinnie. Peter had not yet been to Rome when that was written. Remember? Peter and Paul agreed that Peter would minister to the circumcised (Jews) and Paul to the Gentiles. Peter ministered to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Romans.

Tell me if there was another CHRISTIAN Church in Rome before Peter or Paul started it then who started it.

The only historical reference we have to a possible source is the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem at Pentecost:

Acts 2:7-12
8 And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs — in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power."

It is likely that there were pilgrims present from Rome as well, or that some that were converted at that time later journeyed to Rome, and located other believers who were living there.

See what you are saying does not add up. Why does Peter write from Babylon which was the code name for Rome during these days of persecution. look in rev 14:8 16:19 175 which show babylon meant Rome. Rome was the great city of the NT

Because he was at that time in Rome. AT the end of their lives, both Peter and Paul ended up in Rome, where they both labored to strengthen the Chruch there. It was the foundation of doctrine the two of them laid there, as well as the prominence of that City in the ancient world, that made Rome the pillar and ground of the faith.

the Lord wanted his church started in Rome.

Definitely theLord wanted His church built up and centered in Rome, however He started it in Palestine. The faith migrated to Rome, just as it did to all other major cities at the time.

Also why did in gal. 1:18 if what you are saying is true does it say then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days.  Thats because Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry even after Christs revelation to Paul. Sorry my Pal, you just not adding up to scripture.

Yes, you are right, Paul did visit and confer for 15 days. My point is that he did not receive his teaching from the 12, but from Christ Himself, and Paul and Peter did not “agree to separate” as you asserted, since they were never ministering together. At the end of their lives, shortly before their martyrdoms in Rome, they finally teamed up and ministered together.

 

[guanophore]

Merry Christmas, guanophore!

First of all, allow me to congratulate you on your spectacular post number. You´ll be hitting 11,000 soon. That´s impressive!!

Shameful! I am a CAF addict.

Secondly, I saw in your public profile that your religion is “byzantine”. Forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain what this means. Are you catholic or orthodox? If you are catholic, but from one of the Eastern rites, why don´t you call yourself “catholic byzantine”?

I could, do you want me to change it? I left it that way to provoke inquiry. You have hit on one of my pet peeves, and the reason I have entered this debate with rinnie. Many Latin Catholics think that it is all “Roman” and that is really disrespectful to non-Latin Rite Catholics.

Thirdly, all the catholics who follow a different rite (a non-latin rite) are as catholic as anyone else. They are part of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, whose spiritual centre is in ROME, where the first pope was martyred and rests since then. We all know that Christ founded His Church in the Holy Land. That´s not the issue. The issue is that He entrusted the government of the Church to St. Peter, and St. Peter ended up in Rome. That´s why fidelity to Rome is a hallmark of true catholicism.

I have no arguement with this whatsoever. Peter was the vicar of Christ no matter where he was, Antioch, from which a Petrine line of bishops emerged, Jerusalem, etc. As it happens, at the end of his ministry, he passed the petrine privilege to Linus, who became the bishop of Rome as well as the successor in the line of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Alix: if marriage is a sacrament or a covenant…I don’t honestly care about it that much

JL: I could be wrong, but isn’t a sacrament the oath and ritual sign that make a covenant binding? Gn9:17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” (rainbow) Gn15:17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-

I think it might be more proper to say that the sacrament is the oath and ritual sign of the binding covenant through which the grace flows.

 

[rinnie]

Paul did it everywhere else he went, why would it be any different if it were in Rome? For goodness sake, he was tortured, imprisoned and nearly killed on several occasions for preaching the Gospel.

Because like I told you before in rome you could not get away with it, And Paul and Peter wanted to get the Church started at least.

 

[rinnie]

No, rinnie. Peter had not yet been to Rome when that was written. Remember? Peter and Paul agreed that Peter would minister to the circumcised (Jews) and Paul to the Gentiles. Peter ministered to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Romans.

The only historical reference we have to a possible source is the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem at Pentecost:

Acts 2:7-12
8 And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs — in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power."

It is likely that there were pilgrims present from Rome as well, or that some that were converted at that time later journeyed to Rome, and located other believers who were living there.

Because he was at that time in Rome. AT the end of their lives, both Peter and Paul ended up in Rome, where they both labored to strengthen the Chruch there. It was the foundation of doctrine the two of them laid there, as well as the prominence of that City in the ancient world, that made Rome the pillar and ground of the faith.

Definitely theLord wanted His church built up and centered in Rome, however He started it in Palestine. The faith migrated to Rome, just as it did to all other major cities at the time.

Yes, you are right, Paul did visit and confer for 15 days. My point is that he did not receive his teaching from the 12, but from Christ Himself, and Paul and Peter did not “agree to separate” as you asserted, since they were never ministering together. At the end of their lives, shortly before their martyrdoms in Rome, they finally teamed up and ministered together.

Now I agree with you in the beginning they did not minister together. Because if they did then Paul saying acts would not be correct like I said he knew Peter started the Church. Now think guan, you were right on one effect Paul did not approach Peter right off the bat. You are correct there. That gave Peter time to already establish the Church. It had to of or it would not make sense. But then he met with Peter for the time alone together, then they did agree to separate that is what Jesus wanted. He wanted them to spread the news all over the world. But remember guan, The other apostles did not trust Paul at first remember. They separated on very good terms may I add. I asked Father one time what is this problem with us and your church. He looked at me like I was crazy. He was like what do you mean. (you know how sometimes there is some heated arguments on the threads between us). Thats when Father said there is no difference as far as Authority goes all of the Apostles have authority, He said there is no problem with you and I as far as Church goes,. He said you guys are in full communion with Rome. Its just one went east one west to spread the word and get people as many and fast as they could. He said they just did things different because it wasn’t like it is today with e-mail and stuff. He said they just ran their Church the way they saw fit. But as long as the sacraments are there all is cool. So the way I see it My Priest and yours and me and you would be in a room. The priests would be drinking coffee shooting the breeze and you and I would argue and they would look at us like we are nuts. I will give you one thing. I only know Roman Catholic. Untill this site I never knew there was a difference. Which according to Father the difference dont mean squat. We all see the bible the same way. Agree that the Pope is the Pope, and we all love him and respect and honor him.

 

[rinnie]

By the way I do agree they were not in Rome when they met up, but the Church was already established by Peter. Remember I can’t remember but had not 3 years passed before Paul met with Peter the first time? I will have to check now. But Yes you are correct that they did preach together in the end in Rome. I believe they were preaching together in Rome when Matthew issued a written Gospel among the hebrews. I have to go back and read it again myself. As much as you read you always learn something new. Thats whats awesome about it. But I do know before Paul started his Ministry he met privately with Peter. I cant remember but I am sure I read somewhere God already warned Peter Paul was one of us now. Because again remember the others didn’t trust him but Peter did.

 

[rinnie]

As far as Roman Catholic that is never meant to disrespect anyone but the early church was called Roman Catholic. The Roman was dropped by many Catholic’s through the years but not all. The reason we are called Roman is because we are ruled under the Pope. Kind of how the east and west. One was ruled by Paul one Peter. Thats the big difference. Because like I said there was very little communication. I said to Father kinda like 2 popes in a way. One for the east and one the west. In them days it was kind of like that. Because think about it Paul was their main teacher. He was all they had, it wasn’ t like today. They can talk every two seconds. At least thats how I was told.

 

[hays1122]

Having been born and raised protestant I’ll have to say the biggest difference is the attention payed to Mary.
The pope as being infallible comes second.
After reading many posts here I know better then to suggest that Catholics pray to Mary. But let me just share what I have seen with my own eyes. I have seen people kneel before a statue of Mary and pray. I see statues of Mary at almost any Catholic church I’ve visited. Some people will stop and make the sign of the cross and kiss her feet.
I can honestly say a protestant will not have statues of Mary.
The only time Mary is displayed is in the nativity scene.
As far as the pope goes. I see him as the leader of the Catholic Church. He is a man whom God has chosen to lead the church. Just like in the protestant church we have preachers and we are told that they are chosen by God to lead the church. One preacher for each church.
Protestants don’t believe in confessing sins to our preacher. But I don’t think Catholics going to confession should be considered wrong or none Christian.
On baptizing babies, I feel that babies are pure and without sin.
But if I had been raised a Catholic I’d understand the idea behind baptizing babies.
I’m really glad for this website. I’ve learned so much about the Catholic faith. Mostly because I understand why Catholics do the things they do. And understanding is what we need more of.

 

[SIA]

Because like I told you before in rome you could not get away with it, And Paul and Peter wanted to get the Church started at least.

I don’t buy it. Paul was an unobstructable follower of Christ who would stop at nothing to spread the Gospel. Rome or not, he would have shouted it from the rooftops.

 

[guanophore]

Now I agree with you in the beginning they did not minister together. Because if they did then Paul saying acts would not be correct like I said he knew Peter started the Church.

Peter did not start the Church, rinnie, Jesus did. If you don’t get this point, you will never have any success with evangelization. We do not belong to a church founded my man. This is what distinguishes us from Protestants.

Now think guan, you were right on one effect Paul did not approach Peter right off the bat. You are correct there. That gave Peter time to already establish the Church. It had to of or it would not make sense.

“it” being what, exactly?

But then he met with Peter for the time alone together, then they did agree to separate that is what Jesus wanted. He wanted them to spread the news all over the world. But remember guan, The other apostles did not trust Paul at first remember. They separated on very good terms may I add. I asked Father one time what is this problem with us and your church. He looked at me like I was crazy. He was like what do you mean. (you know how sometimes there is some heated arguments on the threads between us). Thats when Father said there is no difference as far as Authority goes all of the Apostles have authority, He said there is no problem with you and I as far as Church goes,. He said you guys are in full communion with Rome.

Gosh. I am so relieved!

Its just one went east one west to spread the word and get people as many and fast as they could.

Actually, no one went West for as long as they could avoid it, due to the lethality of Rome. Why would anyone choose to go to the place from whence death of the saviour came?

He said they just did things different because it wasn’t like it is today with e-mail and stuff. He said they just ran their Church the way they saw fit.

LOL. Well, not so much. They ran it according to the Apostolic Instruction they had received.

But as long as the sacraments are there all is cool. So the way I see it My Priest and yours and me and you would be in a room. The priests would be drinking coffee shooting the breeze and you and I would argue and they would look at us like we are nuts.

No, rinnie, I would not argue with you . I would go in the chapel and pray for you.

I will give you one thing. I only know Roman Catholic. Untill this site I never knew there was a difference.  Which according to Father the difference dont mean squat. We all see the bible the same way. Agree that the Pope is the Pope, and we all love him and respect and honor him.

It may seem “squat” to you and your priest, but it is not to those of us who are not Roman Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

By the way I do agree they were not in Rome when they met up, but the Church was already established by Peter. Remember I can’t remember but had not 3 years passed before Paul met with Peter the first time? I will have to check now. But Yes you are correct that they did preach together in the end in Rome. I believe they were preaching together in Rome when Matthew issued a written Gospel among the hebrews. I have to go back and read it again myself. As much as you read you always learn something new. Thats whats awesome about it. But I do know before Paul started his Ministry he met privately with Peter. I cant remember but I am sure I read somewhere God already warned Peter Paul was one of us now. Because again remember the others didn’t trust him but Peter did.

Maybe over the holidays you will consent to read the book of Acts, so you can get all these strange misperceptions straightened out?

 

[rinnie]

Maybe over the holidays you will consent to read the book of Acts, so you can get all these strange misperceptions straightened out?

Maybe you should also take your own advice. I told you that that my Priest said that All of the Apostles had the gift of the Holy Spirit and if the Church has all of the sacraments that is the true Church. I told you Father said that the ways churchs did things in that day could have been different but the teachings were not, You turned that all around on me.

I told you that Of course Jesus started the Church but Peter was the one who built the first Church in ROme and it is the ROman Catholic Church. You turn that all around. But you sure cannot prove he didn’t.

I told you that Rom. 15:20 That Paul says he doesnt want to build on another mans foundation referring to Peter who build the church in Rome. I explained it to you that Peter writes from babylon which is the code name for Rome during the days of persecution, even showed you places in the bible where it proves it, you again will not listen you know everything.

Funny thing is where did it say Peter went after the ascension? Could you show me where it says exactly where Peter was? Actually it talks more about Paul, but not Peter. So beings that you know so much more than I can you show me proof that Peter did not in fact go to Rome after the Ascension?

 

[guanophore]

Could you show me where it says exactly where Peter was? Actually it talks more about Paul, but not Peter. So beings that you know so much more than I can you show me proof that Peter did not in fact go to Rome after the Ascension?

Peter and the rest of the Apostles remained in Palestine, near Jerusalem until persecution broke out after the martyrdom of Stephen, culminating in the murder of James, the brother of the Lord.

Acts 11:19
Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one except Jews.

They made a sojourn to Samaria:

Acts 8:14-17
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16(for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

Then they returned to their “home base”

Acts 8:25
25 Now after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans.

They were still in Jerusalem years later, when Paul was converted:

Acts 9:26-27
When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles,

This was three years after Paul was converted:

Gal 1:18-20

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

In this early period,the growth of the Church was centered in Palestine:

Acts 9:31
31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.

God finally convinces Peter that the gospel must be taken to the Gentiles:

Acts 10:5-7
5 Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; 6 he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside."

At that time Peter is living in Joppa. Once the door was opened to the Gentiles by our keeper of the keys, God let Paul loose on the Roman Empire. Converts were gleaned from far and wide. The Apostles supported this work, though Peter did not participate in it to the extent that Paul did.

The Judiazers were hard at work, trying to convince everyone that one needed to become a Jew before following Christ. At some point, during this controversy,and after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts (around AD 50), Peter visits Antioch:

Gal 2:11-12
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

From these activities of Peter in the New Testament, can we agree that he remained in Palestine after the Ascension?

We are in agreement that both Peter and Paul ended up in Rome and were martryed there. We don’t know how long they were there together, or who arrived first. We have the biblical record of Paul’s journey there from Luke, but we don’t have the details on Peter. What we do have is the prophesy of Christ, that “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will take you where you do not wish to go”. From this, we can conclude that Peter was arrested and taken forcibly to Rome. I am sure, though he did not want to go, he made the best of it, and did his best to guide an instruct the flock of God there until he was martryed upside down on the cross.

As far as Paul’s reference to another man’s foundation, there is no reason to believe that this was laid by Peter, whom the two agreed would focus on the Jews, not the Romans.

Gal 2:6-10
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The Church in Rome was already established when Paul wrote to them, but at that time, Peter is not mentioned at all in all the greetings to the saints in Chapter 16. It seems unlikely that, if Paul knew they were there, he would not greet them.

Does it somehow subtract from your Roman Catholicism if Peter labored longer in the East than he did in Rome?

Does it compromise the role of the papacy if Peter arrived in Rome after a church was already thriving there?

I think, if one one reads the powerhouse list in Rom 16 it is clear that there was a strong group of committed Christians there, awaiting the arrival of the Apostles who would come after.

 

[NonCatholic]

Impossible to know, since the Protestant is such a broad term and the CC is also becoming broader.

 

[guanophore]

Impossible to know, since the Protestant is such a broad term and the CC is also becoming broader.

What does that mean, exactly? How is the CC becoming more “broad”?

 

[guanophore]

(Paul) like I said he knew Peter started the Church.

No, I think it is quite clear in Paul’s writings, as well as the rest of the NT, that all the Catholics believed Jesus started the Church.

Now think guan,  That gave Peter time to already establish the Church.  It had to of or it would not make sense.

What would not make sense?

 But remember guan, The other apostles did not trust Paul at first remember.  They separated on very good terms may I add.

I don’t think Peter trusted him either. Clearly it was Barnabas vouching for Peter that got him accepted. However, the others accepted him just as much as Peter.

I asked Father one time what is this problem with us and your church. He looked at me like I was crazy. He was like what do you mean.

I bet you get that a lot.

He said you guys are in full communion with Rome.

Well, the world is looking up!

He said they just ran their Church the way they saw fit.  But as long as the sacraments are there all is cool.

And before Peter and Paul went to Rome.

So the way I see it My Priest and yours and me and you would be in a room. The priests would be drinking coffee shooting the breeze and you and I would argue and they would look at us like we are nuts.

No, rinnie, I have no desire to argue with you. I do so here because I don’t like the posting of wrong information. If we ever get together, with the priests or without, I will just sip my coffee quietly. :coffeeread:

We all see the bible the same way.

Evidently not!

but the Church was already established by Peter.

The Christian Church developed in Rome prior to the arrival of both Peter and Paul. Peter did not establish the Church, Jesus did. You have to get this, rinnie, because Protestants come on here often wanting to know where and when Peter founded the Church.

Matt 16:18
“…on this rock I will build my church”

Who is speaking here? Who founded the Church. Who builds? Whose Church is it? Peter’s?

But I do know before Paul started his Ministry he met privately with Peter.

It is interesting that Scripture documents the opposite.

Gal 1:15-17
15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles,** I did not confer with any human being,** 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

“For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and **immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, **saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 All who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah.” Acts 9:19-22

Your rendition of history does not square with the scriptural account. :nope:

I cant remember but I am sure I read somewhere God already warned Peter Paul was one of us now. Because again remember the others didn’t trust him but Peter did.

I doubt you can produce any shred of evidence to support this, and there is plenty to the contrary.

"When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. 30 When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. "Acts 9:26-30

I don’t see that Peter had any different reaction to Paul than the others. Nor do I see that the others continued to be suspicious of him after Barnabas vouched for him.

It may be that God revealed to Peter that Paul was “ok”, but it is not documented anywhere.

It also may be that it is a figment of your imagination.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe you should also take your own advice.

As a matter of fact, I did!

I told you Father said that the ways churchs did things in that day could have been different but the teachings were not, You turned that all around on me.

You said some things that were not accurate. This was not one of them, though.

I told you that Of course Jesus started the Church but Peter was the one who built the first Church in ROme and it is the ROman Catholic Church. You turn that all around. But you sure cannot prove he didn’t.

It is clear from the NT that a community of believers existed in Rome prior to the arrival of Peter.

The fact that the Latin Rite is known as the “Roman Catholic Church” has no relation to the preaching of Peter in Rome. Peter preached first in Jerusalem, and was pastoring the flock of God there.

I told you that Rom. 15:20 That Paul says he doesnt want to build on another mans foundation referring to Peter who build the church in Rome.

I know you said that, but there is no evidence that it was Peter who laid the foundation in Rome at the time.

I explained it to you that Peter writes from babylon which is the code name for Rome during the days of persecution, even showed you places in the bible where it proves it, you again will not listen you know everything.

I know that there was a community of believers in Rome before Peter went there. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans before Peter wrote from “Babylon”.

Peter built the Church in Jerusalem and Antioch before going to Rome.

Acts 9:31
31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.

 

[mabibleteacher]

How about this idea:

What does it matter? Why should we spend time focusing on what makes us different instead of what unites the family of Christ?

Sacrements, methods of worship, order of worship, confession in or out of a box…all of these things are traditions, rules and methods that MAN has come up with in an effort to feel more connected to God. The actions themselves mean nothing. What should matter most is the condition of our hearts towards God.

What binds us together is that ALL Christian faiths accept that Jesus was sent here to restore man’s relationship with God and that is a merciful gift from God. We don’t deserve it, we can’t earn it and we can’t do anything to get it other than to make the choice to accept it and have eternal life with God when our physical bodies die. Or we can reject it and have eternal life in hell.

The rest of the “stuff” is just picky details, personal preferences, upbringing, traditions and rules. None of that matters to God so why should it matter to us?

 

[jmcrae]

How about this idea:

What does it matter? Why should we spend time focusing on what makes us different instead of what unites the family of Christ?

There is very little that “unites” the family of Christ. There are some who call themselves Christian, who deny the Resurrection, who deny the divinity of Christ, who deny the virginal motherhood of Mary, yet, they would insist on being considered members of the family of Christ. How far down must we go, to find our common denominator?

Sacrements, methods of worship, order of worship, confession in or out of a box…all of these things are traditions, rules and methods that MAN has come up with in an effort to feel more connected to God.

Actually, no. God came up with the Sacraments, and gave them as a gift to His Church.

The actions themselves mean nothing. What should matter most is the condition of our hearts towards God.

Actually, both are very important. The Sacraments aren’t magical, and don’t have any effect on unbelievers. But someone who believes, but then doesn’t make use of the Sacraments, is not in any better of a position than the unbeliever.

What binds us together is that ALL Christian faiths accept that Jesus was sent here to restore man’s relationship with God and that is a merciful gift from God. We don’t deserve it, we can’t earn it and we can’t do anything to get it other than to make the choice to accept it and have eternal life with God when our physical bodies die. Or we can reject it and have eternal life in hell.

All true. But is it not also true, that if you are given the gift, but don’t put it to use, you are not in any better of a situation than someone who rejects, or never receives, the gift?

The rest of the “stuff” is just picky details, personal preferences, upbringing, traditions and rules. None of that matters to God so why should it matter to us?

Why did God bother to establish a Church and give it the Sacraments, if He doesn’t care one way or the other whether we join it, or make use of them?