For our non-catholic followers: A what and if Question

[JonNC]

=EvangelCatholic;11387501]Hey Ben, don’t forget that LCMS parishes avoid a nuptial Eucharist because of Close Communion.

Curiously, I was married in an ELCA parish before the rise of open to anyone communion in that synod, and we had a full mass.
If an LCMS pastor avoids the sacrament because of the possibility of non-Lutheran guests, well, how many times would it be celebrated?

At my Dad’s funeral Mass the pastor [LCMS] included a reminder in the bulletin and several of my Catholic relatives were saddened that they could not take holy Communion with the family.

I’m sure they were, but their sadness ought to be a result of our sad division, not because the LCMS practices essentially the same restrictions as the Catholic Church. That siad, if they were resentful or saddened simply by our practice, they need to refresh themselves in the teaching of their communion, and the results taught there for receiving the sacrament in an “ecclesial community”.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Curiously, I was married in an ELCA parish before the rise of open to anyone communion in that synod, and we had a full mass.
If an LCMS pastor avoids the sacrament because of the possibility of non-Lutheran guests, well, how many times would it be celebrated?

I’m sure they were, but their sadness ought to be a result of our sad division, not because the LCMS practices essentially the same restrictions as the Catholic Church. That siad, if they were resentful or saddened simply by our practice, they need to refresh themselves in the teaching of their communion, and the results taught there for receiving the sacrament in an “ecclesial community”.

Jon

Jon,

Many years ago I was in a wedding party of two close friends from a Lutheran college. The bride’s LCMS grandfather and uncle [pastors] presided at this wedding Mass but only the bride and groom, the bride’s maids and groomsmen [me included] and immediate family communed. The reason was that they didn’t want the service to be too lengthy! So it was a private Mass where just about everyone present was Lutheran yet only a select few were allowed to commune.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Many years ago I was in a wedding party of two close friends from a Lutheran college. The bride’s LCMS grandfather and uncle [pastors] presided at this wedding Mass but only the bride and groom, the bride’s maids and groomsmen [me included] and immediate family communed. The reason was that they didn’t want the service to be too lengthy! So it was a private Mass where just about everyone present was Lutheran yet only a select few were allowed to commune.

I would share in that Thar individual pastors do wrong things is historic.

Jon

 

[kathmandu]

As an Episcopalian we view the sacraments as God’s approved way of doing things. I am sure grace comes with them, but it is not our primary focus. Baptisms, marriages, confirmations, etc. are ceremonies performed within the congregation with witnesses of our faith, and celebration of these spiritual events in our lives.

 

[Kliska]

WHY then do you not believe and accept the Seven sacraments ALL Instituted By Christ to provide GRACE?

If we believe that a “sacrament” is defined as a vehicle of grace, I guess the easiest way to explain my protestant position is that grace doesn’t need a vehicle outside of faith (trust). Grace is defined as unmerited favor which means no “work” can earn it.

Faith taps into grace. I believe in the acts you describe as “sacraments” aren’t sacramental, but they are serious acts. God bestows grace through faith, not sacraments. So, for example, we get sayings such as:

John 1:16-17 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Unmerited favor only comes one way; through trust. What is there to trust? God Himself. I believe the actions that those that believe in sacraments are extraordinarily important, but do not shuttle unmerited favor from God to man.

 

[oneoldboy]

My DEAR friends in Christ.

Please assist my understanding of YOUR understanding in rergards to GRACE

1… i believe we can all agree that “Grace is the unmerited favor of God”

For those of you who teach faith THROUGH grace…

2… your perticular emphisis is a little ODD–

/BUT hebrews 11;1

King James Bible
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

3… so your next-premise is also ODD

If this is a fondational beleive [as we catholics too believe]

WHY then do you not believe and accept the Seven sacraments ALL Instituted By Christ to provide GRACE?

1. there are 2 sacramental necessary-- for a disciple – repentance of sin-- acts 4-- and-water baptism - which will or rather can result in Jesus baptism of the Holy Spirit-

the Holy Spirit is the kEY TO - being a follower of Jesus – “The Way”
The Beginning of Knowledge

1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:

2 To know wisdom and instruction,
to understand words of insight,
3 to receive instruction in wise dealing,
in righteousness, justice, and equity;
4 to give prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the youth—
5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
6 to understand a proverb and a saying,
the words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction.

there is a difference between followers that – has the Holy Spirit and a church that does not–

and i have met hundreds and thousands of “former” catholics that are going to non-catholic churches–

and are not "agonizing " over their commiting mortal or veniel sins-- because dthey have faith in the Holy Scriptures-- of 1st john 1;9

Walking in the Light

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Acts.18: 27 “And when he wished to cross to Acha’ia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed”,

Eph.2; 8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God "–

God Continued Blessings,
Patrick

 

[batman1973]

You did not take my Arabic post seriously…because I have no idea what those characters mean

Yeah, concrete and I were having foreign translation war. to that end:
यह रहस्यपूर्ण सत्य बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है और मैं तुम्हें बताता हूँ कि यह मसीह और कलीसिया पर भी लागू होता है।

Eph. 5:32 Hindi

 

[PJM]

=Kliska;11391102]If we believe that a “sacrament” is defined as a vehicle of grace, I guess the easiest way to explain my protestant position is that grace doesn’t need a vehicle outside of faith (trust). Grace is defined as unmerited favor which means no “work” can earn it.

Faith taps into grace. I believe in the acts you describe as “sacraments” aren’t sacramental, but they are serious acts. God bestows grace through faith, not sacraments. So, for example, we get sayings such as:

John 1:16-17 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Unmerited favor only comes one way; through trust. What is there to trust? God Himself. I believe the actions that those that believe in sacraments are extraordinarily important, but do not shuttle unmerited favor from God to man.

My DEAR friend in Christ;

Your both right and wrong in claiming that “Grace Does not NEED” a vechical.

It does NOT need a vechical and we Do agree on that point.

HOWEVER that completely misses God’s Objective Will for the Sacraments to be a source of Grace. Take note my dear friend at these passages:

John 19:26-28
"When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.

**Here’s how these explain **“Sacramental Grace”

Just moments before dying Christ DESIRING TO DO MORE

[1] gives HIS Mother to the WORLD [women here is your] as our Model and Intercessor

[2] Expresses a DESIRE to do MORE; [Obviously He did thirst]; so their was NO NEED to proclaim this UNLESS it is understood that Christ Desired to Do even more than ALL that he had just accomplished TO AID SOULS IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR MERITING SALVATION

[3] Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.” … Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” … 1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

And NO; we do NOT believe, or teach that anyone can WORK thier way into heaven

But God’s Infinite Mercy and Love CHOOSE to Institute the Seven Sacraments which ALL are a source of GRACE when rightly received an administered. This DEAR friend is God’s way of DOING MORE; not only desireing too; but making it a REALITY:thumbsup:

There is ADDITIOANL biblical evidence of this as it relates to the CC’s exclusive AUTHORITY and Power to teach. READ carefully:

Mt. 10:1-8
John 17:14-20
Mark 16: 14-15
& Mt 28: 16-20 as examples of this. Note the exclusive Powers and Authority from God to His Apostles directly and exclusively. Christ HIMSELF creates the absolute need for Succession by changing the MANDATE of Mt 10 from “the Jews’s” alone to NOW the ENTIRE World.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Traverse]

Whoops! Guess this is what I get for not checking this thread in a while!

Lets see so he never said to be Baptised? John 3:5
He never said to Confess your sins? Confession John 20:25
He never had the laying of hands ? Holy Orders acts 8:17 2 tim 1:6
marriage Eph 5:31-2
Confirmation titus 3:5
Anointing of the sick James 5:15
Holy Communion John 6

I never dismissed baptism or anything like that. My question was what did knowing the meaning of grace have to do with one church’s individual traditions?

It’s really just that we’re from different worlds. I believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because such is plainly stated, but I don’t call it a sacrament. Mostly my question comes from the fact that I don’t see how grace is distributed (for lack of a better term) through all of what the catholic church claims are sacraments. Certainly some, but not all. Marriage is the union between two people, but it doesn’t bring us closer to God. We don’t have to get married. Likewise, no one needs to have the anointing of the sick. If they die before they get it are they lacking in grace?

And which do you believe were "never actually specified by Christ Himself "?

As specific rites as the catholic church observes them? None of them probably. But that’s a different topic altogether. Obviously baptism is very much instituted by Christ, but I certainly don’t see how Jesus had the parties and ceremonies surrounding infant baptism in mind. Likewise, while it’s good to confess our sins to each other, confessing them to one priest and receiving penance to perform is not something we see in scripture. Things like that.

 

[PJM]

=Traverse;11394310]Whoops! Guess this is what I get for not checking this thread in a while!

I never dismissed baptism or anything like that. My question was what did knowing the meaning of grace have to do with one church’s individual traditions?

It’s really just that we’re from different worlds. I believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because such is plainly stated, but I don’t call it a sacrament. Mostly my question comes from the fact that I don’t see how grace is distributed (for lack of a better term) through all of what the catholic church claims are sacraments. Certainly some, but not all. Marriage is the union between two people, but it doesn’t bring us closer to God. We don’t have to get married. Likewise, no one needs to have the anointing of the sick. If they die before they get it are they lacking in grace?

As specific rites as the catholic church observes them? None of them probably. But that’s a different topic altogether. Obviously baptism is very much instituted by Christ, but I certainly don’t see how Jesus had the parties and ceremonies surrounding infant baptism in mind. Likewise, while it’s good to confess our sins to each other, confessing them to one priest and receiving penance to perform is not something we see in scripture. Things like that.

My Friend, PLEASE read post #47 and you’ll gain some necessary insight:thumbsup:

 

[SteveVH]

Obviously baptism is very much instituted by Christ, but I certainly don’t see how Jesus had the parties and ceremonies surrounding infant baptism in mind.

Parties? Are you speaking of the fact that a family might celebrate the Baptism of their child? Do you think there is something wrong with that? In any case, the Church does not put on a party for the Baptized. And, if by ceremonies you mean the liturgy, then you are just ignorant of what the early Church did.

Likewise, while it’s good to confess our sins to each other, confessing them to one priest and receiving penance to perform is not something we see in scripture. Things like that.

You would agree, would you not, that Christ did give the authority to forgive sins to the Church?

“If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)

Why would you imagine that Jesus did this if we were not to confess our sins? Jesus’ statement is very clear. And when he gave this authority he instituted the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[Traverse]

My Friend, PLEASE read post #47 and you’ll gain some necessary insight:thumbsup:

With all due respect, I don’t know what about that post was supposed to be particularly insightful.

Parties? Are you speaking of the fact that a family might celebrate the Baptism of their child? Do you think there is something wrong with that? In any case, the Church does not put on a party for the Baptized. And, if by ceremonies you mean the liturgy, then you are just ignorant of what the early Church did.

Well given that the early church saw baptism as urgent enough to not wait until they could plan celebrations or make sure the baby is dressed up in white with a hat and find god parents then I might suggest you are misremembering something about the early church. I’m not talking about whether the church itself is throwing a party, but that it is the attitude of christians to hold an event and wait to have their child baptized despite the fact they think it is so important. It seems contradictory.

You would agree, would you not, that Christ did give the authority to forgive sins to the Church?

“If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)

Why would you imagine that Jesus did this if we were not to confess our sins? Jesus’ statement is very clear. And when he gave this authority he instituted the sacrament of reconciliation.

That has nothing to do with assigning penance. Nor does it have anything to do with confessing only to a priest. We are to confess our sins to “one another.” That was my point, not that sins shouldn’t be confessed.

 

[SteveVH]

Well given that the early church saw baptism as urgent enough to not wait until they could plan celebrations or make sure the baby is dressed up in white with a hat and find god parents then I might suggest you are misremembering something about the early church. I’m not talking about whether the church itself is throwing a party, but that it is the attitude of christians to hold an event and wait to have their child baptized despite the fact they think it is so important. It seems contradictory.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. First of all, do you believe in infant Baptism at all? Most Protestants wait until the age of reason. Do you think this is more biblical? Secondly, the fact that those being Baptized wear white as a symbol of purity and that we take our faith seriously enough to even have God Parents in no way conflicts with the early Church. And the point is that we are discussing whether or not Jesus instituted the sacrament of Baptism, not whether we should dress our babies in white and celebrate their new life in Christ.

That has nothing to do with assigning penance.

Not everything that the Apostles taught is written in the Bible. So you have really no idea whether or not priests assigned penance in the early Church.

Nor does it have anything to do with confessing only to a priest. We are to confess our sins to “one another.” That was my point, not that sins shouldn’t be confessed.

Really? Do you believe that you personally have the power to forgive sins? I’ll be happy to hear your confession, Traverse, but I have no authority to absolve you from your sins, nor do you have the authority to absolve mine. So other than making it right with one whom we have offended and getting something off our chest, what good is confessing our sins to one another?

 

[Kliska]

PJM, thank you for your reply but we protestants don’t interpret those verses the same way you do. To delve into them would be argumentative and disrespectful of this board being “Catholic Answers.”

But again, thank you for taking the time to type that up. :tiphat:

 

[PJM]

=Traverse;11394431]With all due respect, I don’t know what about that post was supposed to be particularly insightful.

Well given that the early church saw baptism as urgent enough to not wait until they could plan celebrations or make sure the baby is dressed up in white with a hat and find god parents then I might suggest you are misremembering something about the early church. I’m not talking about whether the church itself is throwing a party, but that it is the attitude of christians to hold an event and wait to have their child baptized despite the fact they think it is so important. It seems contradictory.

That has nothing to do with assigning penance. Nor does it have anything to do with confessing only to a priest. We are to confess our sins to “one another.” That was my point, not that sins shouldn’t be confessed.

POST #47 aims to show that Christ [our Good and Perfect God] did HIMSELF institute seven sacraments for the PRIMARY purpose to be a foutain of POTENTAIL GRACE to mankind. That is why He gave His Mother to humanity and that is WHY He Desired to Do more.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[adf417]

PJM, thank you for your reply but we protestants don’t interpret those verses the same way you do. To delve into them would be argumentative and disrespectful of this board being “Catholic Answers.”

But again, thank you for taking the time to type that up. :tiphat:

Are you speaking for all protestants here or just a select few? It is odd you make this statement as it is my understanding that all protestants do not interpret all scriptures the same.

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

Are you speaking for all protestants here or just a select few? It is odd you make this statement as it is my understanding that all protestants do not interpret all scriptures the same.

Peace!!!

Notice that I didn’t say we interpret them the same, but I personally don’t know of protestant denom that interprets all scripture the same as the RC (or else I’d assume they would no longer be Protestants ). Protestants being those Christan groups and peoples “descended” from the reformation. So, for example, even Lutherans don’t interpret all the scripture on all the sacraments, that both they and the RC teach, in the same manner. So, again for example, even if they teach the same sacraments the details differ when looking at scripture put forth as evidence.

Peace unto you as well!

 

[Doug_S]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. First of all, do you believe in infant Baptism at all? Most Protestants wait until the age of reason. Do you think this is more biblical? Secondly, the fact that those being Baptized wear white as a symbol of purity and that we take our faith seriously enough to even have God Parents in no way conflicts with the early Church. And the point is that we are discussing whether or not Jesus instituted the sacrament of Baptism, not whether we should dress our babies in white and celebrate their new life in Christ.

Not everything that the Apostles taught is written in the Bible. So you have really no idea whether or not priests assigned penance in the early Church.

Really? Do you believe that you personally have the power to forgive sins? I’ll be happy to hear your confession, Traverse, but I have no authority to absolve you from your sins, nor do you have the authority to absolve mine. So other than making it right with one whom we have offended and getting something off our chest, what good is confessing our sins to one another?

Sir, I am very certain that Priests did not assign penance in the early church. At least not the church the appostles started. You see the apostles understood that there is no longer a need for priests as we have a new High Priests in Jesus that made the only sacrafice that can take away sins. Read Heb chapter 10.

We as christians are made into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood. Therefore all christians are priests.I know you are probably offended by now but i didn’t make this up it is the word of God!

1 peter 2:1-5
A Living Stone and a Holy People

2 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

James5:16 There is no need for penance with true repentance.
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

It is dificult to understand the bible if you only listen to people who tell you whay to believe.
Even the Apostle Paul commended the Boreans for searching the scripture to verify his teachings.

Peace to all

 

[concretecamper]

Sir, I am very certain that Priests did not assign penance in the early church. At least not the church the appostles started. You see the apostles understood that there is no longer a need for priests as we have a new High Priests in Jesus that made the only sacrafice that can take away sins. Read Heb chapter 10.

We as christians are made into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood. Therefore all christians are priests.I know you are probably offended by now but i didn’t make this up it is the word of God!

1 peter 2:1-5
A Living Stone and a Holy People

2 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

James5:16 There is no need for penance with true repentance.
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

It is dificult to understand the bible if you only listen to people who tell you whay to believe.
Even the Apostle Paul commended the Boreans for searching the scripture to verify his teachings.

Peace to all

Rather than debate what you believe the bible means…go back in history and see what the earliest Catholics believed. Start with St Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. Read St Clement…Read St Justin…read all the Church Fathers. Then sir, you can make an informed decision. To reject the teachings of Ignatius of Antioch as they relate to Christianity would require one to believe St John royally screwed up. And remember, the Fathers shed their blood for Christ…way before the bible was even considered. So test the bible’s meaning against how the early Catholic behaved and what they taught. God Bless.

 

[adf417]

Notice that I didn’t say we interpret them the same, but I personally don’t know of protestant denom that interprets all scripture the same as the RC (or else I’d assume they would no longer be Protestants ). Protestants being those Christan groups and peoples “descended” from the reformation. So, for example, even Lutherans don’t interpret all the scripture on all the sacraments, that both they and the RC teach, in the same manner. So, again for example, even if they teach the same sacraments the details differ when looking at scripture put forth as evidence.

Peace unto you as well!

I certainly did not mean to imply that there might be protestants that interpret scripture the same as the CC. The conundrum for me lies in your implication that all protestants interpret scripture the same as the next protestant when you make a comment like this…

but we protestants don’t interpret those verses the same way you do

Am I reading too much into this statement? Do you believe all protestants interpret scripture the same?

Peace!!!