Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[onemangang]

Augustine would have been a Calviinist if he was born after the Reformaton.

monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=augustine&B1.x=0&B1.y=0

Yep if you cut out all that stuff like freedom of the will, loss of salvation, Authority of the Church, Baptismal regeneration…etc…etc… Sure if you take selected Quotes out of Context, you might be able to make John Piper seem Catholic as well

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam.

Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412] – St. Augustine

 

[De_Maria]

The position that De Maria seems to take here also appears to be incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

My comment is perfectly in line with Catholic Teaching.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the** Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church**."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Did I say that the Protestants were not Christian? Or that they were not in full communion with the Catholic Church and therefore not “true” Christians?

You might want to look up the word, “true” and see all the nuances its contained in its meanings.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

My comment is perfectly in line with Catholic Teaching.

Did I say that the Protestants were not Christian? Or that they were not in full communion with the Catholic Church and therefore not “true” Christians?

You might want to look up the word, “true” and see all the nuances its contained in its meanings.

Sincerely,

De Maria

No, thanks De Maria. I am not interested in that rabbit trail! I am not motivated to chase after words you have inserted of your own accord into the Catechism and the Scripture. :ehh:

I would like to see your response to # 176

 

[De_Maria]

No, thanks De Maria. I am not interested in that rabbit trail!

Nor was I. But you claimed I was wrong. So I proved you were wrong.

I am not motivated to chase after words you have inserted of your own accord into the Catechism and the Scripture. :ehh:

Really? Which word did I insert. You provided the verse from the Catechism. I showed you what I said.

I would like to see your response to # 176

You make rabbit trails all over don’t you. And you never admit you’re wrong. You just start new ones. And then claim you didn’t start them.

 

[De_Maria]

An honest answer.

I believe that Lutheran beliefs, found in the Augsburg Confession, are consistent with the historic teachings of the Church.

So, Lutheran beliefs do not follow Luther? In what sense are they “Lutheran”. I’m referring to your agreeing with Guanophore that you don’t follow Luther.

Good question. The “sola” refers to the use of scriputre as the sole final norm.

Sole final norm. But the name actually drops the “final”. Which, according to the sense in which you are trying to explain it, would be the more accurate adjective. Since you claim to accept the Church and Tradition as well as Scripture, it is not alone.

In what sense can Scripture be the “final” authority? Can Scripture detect an error when someone is interpreting its pages?

Lets take an example. Say that Martin L. reads a page of Scripture and decides that it says “faith alone”. Who ultimately decides whether Martin is right or wrong? Who makes the final decision whether Martin is right or wrong?

a. Martin
b. Scripture
c. The Church

In Christian history, we see where the Church has decided many issues. But we see none where Scripture says, “this is right or this is wrong.”

Many times, Scripture is the first resource reviewed to see whether the “interpretation” of this or that person is correct. But in the final court of appeals, it is the interpretation compared to the Traditions passed down by the Church, the interpretations of the Scriptures passed down by the Fathers and the teaching of the Magisterium. And all these comparisons are done by the authoritative Church.

So, Scripture does not seem to be the final authority. Nor does Scripture call itself the final authority.

It does not refer to an exclusion of Tradition, but only requires that Tradition not contradict with scripture.

1. Catholic Traditions do not contradict Scripture. Catholic Traditions are the basis of the New Testament. Jesus Christ did not write any Scriptures. He established the Church and commanded her to teach His Traditions.
2. Whereas, Lutheran traditions which contradict Catholic Teaching, do contradict Scripture.

No exactly. Sola is a descriptive of final.

But final is dropped, so how does it describe “final”.

And the Scriptures don’t appear to be the final authority consulted by all those documents in which you claim to believe.

Catholics would say that sacred scripture and sacred Tradition are equal.

Agreed.

We would say that Tradition is important, and even critical, but accountable to scripture.

And yet, the New Testament Scripture was written from the pre-existing Traditions of the Church.

Jesus Christ established the Traditions. People wrote the Scriptures.

That’s why I said Lutherans accept the 7 early councils, and the 3 ancient creeds. They rightly reflect the teaching of scripture and represent the authority of the Church to set doctrine.

That is a matter of opinion. How can it be rightly reflect the authority of the Church depicted in Scripture, when in Scripture, the Church is depicted as the ultimate decision making authority.

Scripture is consulted. So is Tradition. So is historic understanding of the Magisterium. And the understanding of the Fathers. And the ancient prayers. etc. etc. But the Church makes the ultimate decision. I have yet to hear anyone say, “The Scriptures declared that a heresy.” But I always hear, “the Church declared that a heresy.”

An example from scripture that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic era practice?

Oh. Sorry, misunderstood. You’re actually admitting that Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture? That’s a first.

A definition of what?

A definition of sola final scripture.

Teaches such a thing about what?

to see if Scripture teaches that Scriptujre is the final authority as I assumed you were claiming…

Orthodoxy? Or Rome?

The Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Truth.

In a way, yes. It was “certain people” who met and wrote the creeds, who sat in the Council of Nicea, for example, and wrote canon 6.

What evidence do you have, from scripture or the early councils, that Rome and Rome exclusively is the true Church of Christ?

The Catholic Church is the only one described in Scripture.

Why should I believe that one patriarch on its own holds more authority than the others who have maintained communion with each other?

Because Christ gave St. Peter authority over the entire Church when He handed him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jon

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

…

I would like to see your response to # 176

#176 is CU’s message. She has asked me not to respond to her messages.

However, if you need assistance with that one, Scripture Catholic has a very good website which, if memory serves, has all the verses you need to respond to that question.

Oh and you might want to explain that Tradition came first. The Church was administering the Sacraments, before she wrote about them in the Scriptures. And the writings do not have the modern language attached to them, because the Theological language hadn’t developed yet. Cite the Trinity as an example.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JonNC]

=KathleenGee;10044484]Problem is universal Christianity has focused on the Eucharist for 2,000 years, and the Protestants did as well until Luther.

Wait, Kathleen. I’m not sure I understand this. “… and the Protestants did as well until Luther”. Which protestants before Luther? And which protestants focused/focus on the Eucharist more than Luther/Lutherans? Which ones discern His true body and blood more than Luther/Lutherans?

Baptism seals us in Christ. We belong to Christ. We image Christ. But He said that we are to eat of Him to have eternal life. And we also believe in the sacrament of confirmation that strengthens us and matures our faith. And we have the sacrament of confession/reconciliation/penance to remove grave sin from us and restore us to communion with Christ in the Church. With that are those consecrated in truth and spirit to become priests, and to serve at the altar.

I can’t think of anything to dispute here. While we don’t refer to confirmation as a sacrament in the strict sense of the word, surely we would agree with its role in our growth in grace.

And our greatest work…as shown in Scripture, is to worship God, to love Him above all things.

You then get to the issue of how you worship. Protestant Bible services and the Mass are two extremely different forms of worship. Our greatest work is to be united with the wounded but triumphant Lord at the altar of the heavenly Father, and the Eucharist is our communion with Him in heaven.

Agreed in the first, and as for the second, I think you would find Lutheran Divine Service to be, in many ways though not all, a parallel to the Catholic Mass.

It is the Eucharist Who feeds us to grow into more and more the image of Christ Himself…and we receive His body, blood, soul, and divinity.

No argument.

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

Wait, Kathleen. I’m not sure I understand this. “… and the Protestants did as well until Luther”. Which protestants before Luther? And which protestants focused/focus on the Eucharist more than Luther/Lutherans? Which ones discern His true body and blood more than Luther/Lutherans?

I can’t think of anything to dispute here. While we don’t refer to confirmation as a sacrament in the strict sense of the word, surely we would agree with its role in our growth in grace.

Agreed in the first, and as for the second, I think you would find Lutheran Divine Service to be, in many ways though not all, a parallel to the Catholic Mass.

No argument.

Jon

But Jesus did not say, the bread that I will give will be mingled with my flesh.

He said, the bread that I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world.

consubstantiation vs transubstantiation

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;10044885]So, Lutheran beliefs do not follow Luther? In what sense are they “Lutheran”. I’m referring to your agreeing with Guanophore that you don’t follow Luther.

What I said was that there are things Luther believed that is not accepted by Lutherans. Even Luther was subject to the belief that all teachers and teachings are subject to accountability to scripture. OTOH, if one reads Luther’s Small Catechism, for example, it is safe to say that Lutherans do affirm what he says there.

Sole final norm. But the name actually drops the “final”. Which, according to the sense in which you are trying to explain it, would be the more accurate adjective. Since you claim to accept the Church and Tradition as well as Scripture, it is not alone.

No, final is final. That is, we accept Tradition, insofar as it does not contradict scripture.

In what sense can Scripture be the “final” authority? Can Scripture detect an error when someone is interpreting its pages?

That’s why we have the Church.

Lets take an example. Say that Martin L. reads a page of Scripture and decides that it says “faith alone”. Who ultimately decides whether Martin is right or wrong? Who makes the final decision whether Martin is right or wrong?

a. Martin
b. Scripture
c. The Church

For Lutherans,the confessions.

In Christian history, we see where the Church has decided many issues. But we see none where Scripture says, “this is right or this is wrong.”

Agreed. The Church uses scripture as the final norm to set doctrine.

Many times, Scripture is the first resource reviewed to see whether the “interpretation” of this or that person is correct. But in the final court of appeals, it is the interpretation compared to the Traditions passed down by the Church, the interpretations of the Scriptures passed down by the Fathers and the teaching of the Magisterium. And all these comparisons are done by the authoritative Church.

And that is the Catholic model, and the Orthodox model. Which is correct, since they don’t always agree?

So, Scripture does not seem to be the final authority. Nor does Scripture call itself the final authority.

Let’s see if this helps. Mind you, I’m not trying to convince you that the Lutheran hermeunetic model and practice are correct. That’s not my interest and intent.
From the Formula of Concord:

1. **We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, **as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

continued…

 

[JonNC]

1. Catholic Traditions do not contradict Scripture. Catholic Traditions are the basis of the New Testament. Jesus Christ did not write any Scriptures. He established the Church and commanded her to teach His Traditions.

By in large, I agree, but not totally, particularly where there is disagreement with the Orthodox. Here we find the question, whose interpretation of Tradition is correct?

1. Whereas, Lutheran traditions which contradict Catholic Teaching, do contradict Scripture.

Obviously, I would disagree. But I would be willing to reconsider on those areas mentioned just before if Rome and the other patriachs came to reconciliation and agreement.

But final is dropped, so how does it describe “final”.

See above.

And the Scriptures don’t appear to be the final authority consulted by all those documents in which you claim to believe.

But they do agree rightly reflect scripture, which is exactly my point about why Lutherans accept them.

And yet, the New Testament Scripture was written from the pre-existing Traditions of the Church.

True, and no conflict that.

Jesus Christ established the Traditions. People wrote the Scriptures.

True.

That is a matter of opinion. How can it be rightly reflect the authority of the Church depicted in Scripture, when in Scripture, the Church is depicted as the ultimate decision making authority.

Seems like a circular argument.

Scripture is consulted. So is Tradition. So is historic understanding of the Magisterium. And the understanding of the Fathers. And the ancient prayers. etc. etc. But the Church makes the ultimate decision. I have yet to hear anyone say, “The Scriptures declared that a heresy.” But I always hear, “the Church declared that a heresy.”

i haven’t argued that.

Oh. Sorry, misunderstood. You’re actually admitting that Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture? That’s a first.

Clearly not a first. SS is clearly a post-apostolic practice. Practices, after all, are not always in scripture, anyway.
The linked artcle, by an Anglican, but appears on the Lutheran Theology website, speaks to the issue. My only disagreement with it is the use of the term doctrine when speaking of sola scriptura. Otherwise…
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

A definition of sola final scripture.

to see if Scripture teaches that Scriptujre is the final authority as I assumed you were claiming…

See the reference to the Formula of Concord above.

The Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Truth.

By Catholic Church, I assume you mean solely and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Then again, the Orthodox claim to be fully Catholic. So do Lutherans, apostolic succession notwithstanding.

The Catholic Church is the only one described in Scripture.

An opinion, but one that I respect.

Because Christ gave St. Peter authority over the entire Church when He handed him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Well, the keys apply to the whole whole Church, not just to St. Peter exclusively. Then agai, we claim Peter, too.

Sincerely,

Of this I have no doubt, and honor you steadfastness.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Augustine would have been a Calviinist if he was born after the Reformaton.

monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=augustine&B1.x=0&B1.y=0

CU,

I would have been a Mormon if born in a Mormon family. If does not satisfy truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Jon…

To clarify…what I meant was that up to the Protestant Reformation…with Luther starting it and breaking away…that for 1500 years Christianity believed in the centrality and summit of the Eucharist.

As I have shared here various times, we go back to Genesis…and God showing Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit, the Knowledge of Good and Evil…man making himself a god…as was indicated by Lucifer to Eve. And then we witness God showing Adam and Eve the Tree of Life of whose fruit they could eat. When they were expelled from the Garden, they could see the Tree of Life ahead of them, but they could not go near it, the Angel separating them by a sword.

Later in Jeremiah, we have the image of the tree standing by the river, whose roots go down deep into the living waters to live. We witness the Jews receiving manna from heaven, we witness the Angel Gabriel telling the shepherds, the lowest class in Israel, to go to a manger, and see Christ placed in an animal feeder…he specifically pointing out the manger as a sign and symbol, to Jesus being hung ‘on a tree’ Isaiah. Jesus calls Himself the Vine, and we the branches.

Jesus Christ is Truth, Jesus is the Son of God. He does not lie, He does not deceive, He does not fail. He established His Church on His apostles Who knew Him and learned from Him until they began communion with Him at the Last Supper, He calling them now ‘friends’.

Fr Barrows on our tv channel, describes the Church at Pentecost as beginning as a small seed. There is a chapel in Rome where the Holy Father greets many people from around the world and the image of the mighty tree in wood form.

The Church is now a mighty tree, and yes, it has both wheat and chaff…those who do virtue…and virtue tends to hide itself, as well as the chaff, those who are destructive and cause great scandal.

But what has not been broken is the ability of the Church to provide us apostolic succession, which Luther denied, and in this apostolic succession and the laying on of hands. And the other ability or function of the Church is to provide us the fullness of faith which comes from communion with and into eternal life – now – with the Holy Trinity.

If we cannot come to the same banquet table, how can we say we have the fullness of the Eucharist when this communion is not actualized among us?

It is a matter of integrity of faith. Ours is based on the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ, not on personal interpretation of Scripture in text form that does not provide us full communion.

This break in communion, this break in faith in the reality of apostolic succession, the enduring role of the Seat of Peter…that provides us true communion, universality among many kinds of people, as well as being foremost in evangelizing compared to the Eastern churches, was also denied by Luther who considered the Papacy anti-Christ. He wrote several treatises against the Catholic Church that were very inflammatory and aided in the growth of nationalism in Germany that furthered the splintering of faith and the common Christian brotherhood that transcends nationalism, politics…the communion of a diverse people we encounter at Daily Mass.

 

[guanophore]

Nor was I. But you claimed I was wrong. So I proved you were wrong.

Really? Which word did I insert. You provided the verse from the Catechism. I showed you what I said.

You make rabbit trails all over don’t you. And you never admit you’re wrong. You just start new ones. And then claim you didn’t start them.

Actually I claimed that your position on this matter does not seem compatible with the Catchism or Scriptures. Neither of those sources has any reference to “true” Christians.

Protestants are Christians but they are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, denying many of the Truths which Christ taught. Therefore they are not “true” Christians. Neither can they trace their Faith to Jesus Christ except through the Church which their progenitors rejected.

Shrug all you want. The fact is, if you are not Catholic, you are not a “true” Christian.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

You asked me to look up the word you inserted (true) and learn it’s meanings.

Christian maturity acknowledges the facts.

I agree, and I stand by what I said. It appears that what you are saying is not consistent with what the Church teaches. The Catechism says “htey have the right to be called Christian”. De Maria says “they are not “true” Christians”.

Still interested in your response to # 176

 

[JonNC]

=KathleenGee;10045693]Hi Jon…

To clarify…what I meant was that up to the Protestant Reformation…with Luther starting it and breaking away…that for 1500 years Christianity believed in the centrality and summit of the Eucharist.

I don’t think Luther would have said that the Lord’s Supper was something less.

As I have shared here various times, we go back to Genesis…and God showing Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit, the Knowledge of Good and Evil…man making himself a god…as was indicated by Lucifer to Eve. And then we witness God showing Adam and Eve the Tree of Life of whose fruit they could eat. When they were expelled from the Garden, they could see the Tree of Life ahead of them, but they could not go near it, the Angel separating them by a sword.

Later in Jeremiah, we have the image of the tree standing by the river, whose roots go down deep into the living waters to live. We witness the Jews receiving manna from heaven, we witness the Angel Gabriel telling the shepherds, the lowest class in Israel, to go to a manger, and see Christ placed in an animal feeder…he specifically pointing out the manger as a sign and symbol, to Jesus being hung ‘on a tree’ Isaiah. Jesus calls Himself the Vine, and we the branches.

Jesus Christ is Truth, Jesus is the Son of God. He does not lie, He does not deceive, He does not fail. He established His Church on His apostles Who knew Him and learned from Him until they began communion with Him at the Last Supper, He calling them now ‘friends’.

Fr Barrows on our tv channel, describes the Church at Pentecost as beginning as a small seed. There is a chapel in Rome where the Holy Father greets many people from around the world and the image of the mighty tree in wood form.

The Church is now a mighty tree, and yes, it has both wheat and chaff…those who do virtue…and virtue tends to hide itself, as well as the chaff, those who are destructive and cause great scandal.

But what has not been broken is the ability of the Church to provide us apostolic succession, which Luther denied, and in this apostolic succession and the laying on of hands. And the other ability or function of the Church is to provide us the fullness of faith which comes from communion with and into eternal life – now – with the Holy Trinity.

In what way do you believe Luther, and by extension, Lutherans deny Apostolic Succession, and the laying on of hands? There are, in fact, Lutherans who continue in AS, whether or not Rome views it as valid or licit. And the confessions speak directly to the issue, insisting on the desire to maintain it, had the bishops ordained our priests. when they wouldn’t,the reformers looked to the historic truth that in the early Church presbyter and bishop originally were the same order. Therefore, they relied on presbyter ordination, a practice not unheard of in the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation.

If we cannot come to the same banquet table, how can we say we have the fullness of the Eucharist when this communion is not actualized among us?

This we applies to us both, indeed! It is the sad consequnce of our division, which we must pray forgiveness of, and healing of.

It is a matter of integrity of faith. Ours is based on the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ, not on personal interpretation of Scripture in text form that does not provide us full communion.

Kathleen, that same Oral Tradition does not provide full communion with the Orthodox either, even though they claim it too. Simply blaming it on personal interpretation, which is not the same as sola scriptura, misses the point.

This break in communion, this break in faith in the reality of apostolic succession, the enduring role of the Seat of Peter…that provides us true communion, universality among many kinds of people, as well as being foremost in evangelizing compared to the Eastern churches, was also denied by Luther who considered the Papacy anti-Christ. He wrote several treatises against the Catholic Church that were very inflammatory and aided in the growth of nationalism in Germany that furthered the splintering of faith and the common Christian brotherhood that transcends nationalism, politics…the communion of a diverse people we encounter at Daily Mass.

Luther wrote what Luther wrote. How much less would he have written had their not existed the vile corruption in Rome at his time, issues of doctrine aside? True communion is in the faith, not merely in the seat of one apostle.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Guanaphore…you made excellent points…about ‘true Christians’…how can we who are sinners claim to be true Christians vs those who do not appear to be?..we don’t live their lives or see the acts of faith they witness for Christ…doing so without an arena of other Christians watching one’s every move.

Yes, it is very risky to define one set of Christians as ‘true’ and others as less or non…sounds proud.

 

[JonNC]

Guanaphore…you made excellent points…about ‘true Christians’…how can we who are sinners claim to be true Christians vs those who do not appear to be?..we don’t live their lives or see the acts of faith they witness for Christ…doing so without an arena of other Christians watching one’s every move.

Yes, it is very risky to define one set of Christians as ‘true’ and others as less or non…sounds proud.

Kathleen,
Protestants who claim the same about Catholics should read your post here.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Jon,

Yes, there was the Great Schism around 1000, but when I speak of the Seat of Peter, I am speaking of the Holy Father in union with the bishops…and the eastern churches were all founded by the original apostles.

I was reading Luther’s writings of not believing in apostolic succession…which the Church can prove with its succession of popes – be they faithful or corrupt – and that the schism with the Orthodox has limited itself by becoming more ethnic oriented, and likewise less evangelical. Beyond the type of talks here on CAF involving the Orthodox, there is a movement among Orthodox leadership…all because of the growing attacks on Christianity as well as its decline in Europe, to restore our common unity.

The Orthodox sacraments are valid because they likewise have retained their succession of bishops. We Latins provide interpretations and the Orthodox have their interpretations…Latin more intellectual, Orthodox more mystical…and the real problem is pride, politics, and geography. They have always had their own jurisidictions. But they still share with us the common truth of Jesus Christ, the Word and Sacraments.

The papacy is given the power to bind, loosen, to forgive. The Seat of Peter has the keys to the Blood of Christ. It is the Eucharist that we enter into communion with the Lord.

I understand what you mean that Luther in various cases, was speaking for himself and this not attributed to modern Lutherans today. He did have power of the pen, he did seek a more emotive and lay involved liturgy that we have today in the Catholic Church, but he was also inflammatory and divisive. Some of his excesses caused other Reformers to pull away, and want to be under the umbrella of the ‘Evangelical Church’, this coming about in the early 1800’s.

The problem is fracture and Sola Scrptura…the Council of Trent addressed and corrected the abuses in the pre Reformation Church, and it is also the fault of the ecclesiastics to not give voice to Luther.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Oh, thanks for explaining that. Yes, the Orthodox have also preserved the Apostolic faith that has been handed down through the paradosis, so they also retain the 7 sacraments.

They are not exclusive in the sense that they are not available to all, though.

This is very good to know. It means that you are open to whatever God reveals to you, even if it may not seem to appeal to you on the surface. It shows a deep commitment to the Way.

Jesus instituted the sacraments as channels through which His grace flows. If He did not intend to work through them, I don’t think He would have established them. They are part of the once for all divine deposit of faith entrusted to the Church.

Catholics believe that we do not have the right to excise or set aside any parts of that One Faith, even if certain parts of it don’t seem “necessary” or “essential” to us. We may not know the value of certain elements from our point of view, but God does.

Indeed He does, and in some ways He has specified precisely HOW He wants us to come. This “how” is contained in the Sacred Tradition that has been preserved from the Apostles.

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

The Churches founded by the Apostles have obeyed this Apostolic instruction, and faithfully preserved the traditions, whether by word of mouth, or by letter. These two strands form one cord of inerrant and inspired revelation. They were never intended to be separated from one another, and when they were (during the Reformation) both aspects began to degrade in the ecclesial communities that were formed.

If they are ready to receive it, yes, but more than that, all the graces that flow through Protestant ecclesial commuities also originate in the One Church founded by Christ. To the extent that our separated brethren have retained the contents of the once for all divine deposit of faith, the HS works through these communities to draw others to Himself.

There is no doubt that grace flows from God to all of His people, whether they are identifiable as members of His One Body, or not. I don’t think it is accurate to say that “Protestants are weaker Christians” (though I am sure there is at least one person on this thread that would affirm that)

It would be more accurate to say that Protestants are making the journey with less resources. There is a smaller portion of the divine deposit of faith, and in some communities, more gets jettisoned by the day!

That being said, I personally think that many Protestants do more with less, to the shame of Catholics. When I was sojourning among my separated brethren, I found many devoted and committed Christians - more than I had met over the course of a lifetime in the Catholic Church. And when I have seen those fervent brothers and sisters come into the fullness of the faith, they are absolute powerhouses (Scott Hahn is a good example).

This is a decision that each person has to make for themselves. You have said that, if you believed that the CC could provide you with more grace, you would become Catholic, and that is the most important point. In the meantime, of course, we will pray for you and try to pursuade you.

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. - Apostle Paul

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. - Apostle Paul

There is an apostolic faith in which Christians need to adhere to. Many modern day Christians have way too low of a view of church history; therefore, there is a tendency to change the apostolic faith to one of their own personal flavor and desire. I do believe Catholics have too high of a view of church history.

2 Thess 2:14-15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

As a Protestant, I have no problem with this verse and understand the importance of sacred tradition. I guess the debate and divide between Protestants and Catholics is identifying what are sacred traditions and what are the traditions of men. We both agree that Scripture is sacred tradition that we are to stand firm and hold fast to. I don’t think Catholic apologetics can use this traditions verse as a proof text to validate all of Catholic dogma and official doctrine. When I read Catholic apologetics referring to the church, we understand and define the world church in mutually exclusive ways. I don’t limit the church to be simply the Catholic Church; rather I understand the church to be all that are united to Christ by faith which includes Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and others who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. For example, when I listen to Catholic radio, I hear hymns and songs written by Protestants playing on Catholic radio. American Catholics read our Bible translations and books written by Protestant writers all the time. Our mutual exclusive presuppositions require us to understand each other’s position for better discussion and dialog. Protestants see the Bible as being catholic but not Catholic.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Problem is universal Christianity has focused on the Eucharist for 2,000 years, and the Protestants did as well until Luther.

Baptism seals us in Christ. We belong to Christ. We image Christ. But He said that we are to eat of Him to have eternal life. And we also believe in the sacrament of confirmation that strengthens us and matures our faith. And we have the sacrament of confession/reconciliation/penance to remove grave sin from us and restore us to communion with Christ in the Church. With that are those consecrated in truth and spirit to become priests, and to serve at the altar.

And our greatest work…as shown in Scripture, is to worship God, to love Him above all things.

You then get to the issue of how you worship. Protestant Bible services and the Mass are two extremely different forms of worship. Our greatest work is to be united with the wounded but triumphant Lord at the altar of the heavenly Father, and the Eucharist is our communion with Him in heaven.

It is the Eucharist Who feeds us to grow into more and more the image of Christ Himself…and we receive His body, blood, soul, and divinity.

That is the Catholic perspective.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Funny thing, for the Catholic individual, one can not boast of their grace or faith, being that they are given by God! I do not have to learn the Greek, or Hebrew, Jewish Customs, hermeneutical or grammatical structures, or know more bible verses than the next guy, all I have to do is trust Christ, who has revealed Himself to us through the Church!

In other words, God did not leave us alone to discern, who He is by our own intellect, If that were true, then He would be reserved for the Intelligentsia, and not the common man! Instead Christ has given us, the manifold wisdom of God, the Church so that our faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

If you guys were honest, you would admit that the Catholic Church is no different than Protestant churches in which church leaders, theologians, priests, bishops, laity, etc disagree with each other all the time. There is an in-house struggle and in-house protestors, and in-house reformation taking place behind the doors of the Catholic Church. You guys have various divisions, sects, and factions fighting each other… liberal branches, American branches, staunch conservative orthodox branches clashing with each other. One obvious example is the internal struggle of artificial birth control for American Catholics. Statistically through Catholic sources, 98% of American Catholics have used artificial birth control. I believe official Catholic doctrine defines artificial birth control as a form of abortion.