How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[Always_For_Him]

Do you think you might want to start RCIA to see how catholicism fits?

Great advice. That is a very good idea. 5pint, you don’t have to jump ship yet, but it certainly seems like you are wanting what the Catholic Church will give you. Confession is a beautiful sacrament. You will not feel any dispair. You will feel God’s grace wash all over you because YOU have confessed your sins. Did your pastor have you do an examination of conscience? Did you pastor discuss firm purpose of amendment with you? I think it is the totality of the Catholic confession that makes it so wonderful. When you feel truly sorry for your sin(s), have made the firm descision that you will not do that again, and you seek grace from confession and get it, you will understand why we still and will always have the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is beautiful.

The “schism” about to happen to the Lutheran Church cannot be a good thing. It is kinda like the liberals vs the conservatives. The gray area just keeps getting wider and wider. You have to hold on to the truth - it doesn’t change. Just because the times change, doesn’t mean God’s Word changes. In Protestantism over the last 500 years, that truth has just changed and changed. You have to hold on to the truth, even if goes against your personal desire. I think that is what people have a hard time with. There is a lot of human will over God’s will when changes to Christianity’s beliefs are continually being made. The Catholic Church does not give in to that pressure. It stands today for what it stood for 2,000 years ago. That is why it is a difficult faith to follow. People today, what what they want, the way THEY want it. You will find unity and grace in the One teachings of Jesus’ One Truth.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Whoa! :bigyikes:

What is making this thread popular?
I didn’t know my question would lead to this
many posts!
Neither did I know there would be this many
answers.

I am so glad you did start this thread!!! It is amazing where the conversation can go. What a great discussion this has become!!!

 

[5pintLutheran]

Are your really that comfortable with the Mary, Papacy, Purgatory issues?

Have you ever heard the clear explanation of the Gospel from a reformed protestant perspective?

Well, yes I have. I grew up Presbyterian, with ALOT of southern Baptist and Methodist friends, so I have gotten my healthy dose of the Gospel. Yes, I do believe in Jesus Christ as God.

Yes, I’ve been studying the underlying issues surrounding Mary, the Papacy, and Purgatory, and it’s been difficult to swallow.

I’ve changed my mind on Mary, and actually have come to love her… After all, if we’re to imitate Christ, and he loved his mother, then shouldn’t we as well? If Jesus didn’t love his mother, then he would be violating one of the 10 commandments. Also, if she said “all nations shall call me blessed” wouldn’t it be more biblical to call her the “blessed Virgin mother”?

The Papacy, I’ve had a tougher time with, but can see the reasoning behind the office. The papal office can be seen as unifying to both sides (catholic and Protestant) if you want to get technical. Catholics are unified in communion with the Roman pontiff, and the Protestants are unified in the sense that they aren’t in communion with the Pope. After seriously looking at the numbers, I believe that the RCC is more unified than any of the 33-38,000 different Protestant sects out there right now.

All these sects came to be b/c of what 2 Pet 1:20 says: “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” EVERY one of the Protestant churches that are kicking today, exist b/c of disobedience of 2 Pet 1:20, with the exception of the Church of England (In which that church formed b/c Henry 8 couldn’t keep it in his pants)

I think that there needs to be an authority (yes, I said it) on what is right and true. It’s just when you’re raised Protestant, it’s hard to put that out of your mind, that the Pope is the antichrist, and yada yada yada.

As for Purgatory… I don’t know quite yet how to grasp it.

 

[5pintLutheran]

:twocents:

Are your really that comfortable with the Mary, Papacy, Purgatory issues?

Have you ever heard the clear explanation of the Gospel from a reformed protestant perspective?

One other thing I have to ask myself:

Do I trust myself enough to interpret scripture on my own? Do I have enough intellect to analyze scripture IN CONTEXT, in a way that will bring about the fullness of truth? What can private interpretation offer me, what 2,000 years of Biblical study hasn’t already taken in and considered? I’ve heard thousands of different interpretations of Holy Scripture, and after hearing all of them… Which one is correct?

To put it bluntly… Do I trust myself enough to study scripture?

 

[micas]

Josephus also rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Also, the Sadducee’s only accepted the Torah, not the prophets in their canon of scripture, which shows that there was not one standard canon accepted in the time of Christ.

But the cannon was closed and the Apocrypha were not included right? So I dont get your point. Two different sects at the time of Christ does not constitute two differtent OT

 

[JRKH]

But the cannon was closed and the Apocrypha were not included right? So I dont get your point. Two different sects at the time of Christ does not constitute two differtent OT

At the First Council of Nicea, (around 380-390 a.d.), an ecumenical council of the Bishops of the Universal Christian Church, the books for the Bible were confirmed and ratified. These included the Deueros as well as longer versions of 2 other books. This same list of books was reconfirmed by several subsiquent councils all before the Time of the Protestant reformation. The Canon was then officially closed at the council of Trent because of the confusion brought about by Luther’s unauthorized changes.

So - The Canon of the Bible was fixed by the Spirit Guided and Protected Church at 73 books. It was reconfirmed by several more councils in the first meillenium. The Canon of the Bible was changed to 66 books by one person.

As to the question of just when the Jewish canon was closed and what was included, there is some debate on that. It is a fact however, that the septuigent was written, was in circulation, and was used in synagoges during Jesus time. Plus there is evidence that Jesus used it and the ECF’s used it.

Peace
James

 

[savedsinner]

But the cannon was closed and the Apocrypha were not included right? So I dont get your point. Two different sects at the time of Christ does not constitute two differtent OT

According to your logic here, if the canon was closed, then I guess the New Testament is not included.

As for me, I will accept the decision of the Christian council of Rome when it decreed in the year 382 AD:

 It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I’ve changed my mind on Mary, and actually have come to love her… After all, if we’re to imitate Christ, and he loved his mother, then shouldn’t we as well? If Jesus didn’t love his mother, then he would be violating one of the 10 commandments. Also, if she said “all nations shall call me blessed” wouldn’t it be more biblical to call her the “blessed Virgin mother”?

The Papacy, I’ve had a tougher time with, but can see the reasoning behind the office. The papal office can be seen as unifying to both sides (catholic and Protestant) if you want to get technical. Catholics are unified in communion with the Roman pontiff, and the Protestants are unified in the sense that they aren’t in communion with the Pope. After seriously looking at the numbers, I believe that the RCC is more unified than any of the 33-38,000 different Protestant sects out there right now.

All these sects came to be b/c of what 2 Pet 1:20 says: “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” EVERY one of the Protestant churches that are kicking today, exist b/c of disobedience of 2 Pet 1:20, with the exception of the Church of England (In which that church formed b/c Henry 8 couldn’t keep it in his pants)

I think that there needs to be an authority (yes, I said it) on what is right and true. It’s just when you’re raised Protestant, it’s hard to put that out of your mind, that the Pope is the antichrist, and yada yada yada.

As for Purgatory… I don’t know quite yet how to grasp it.

YES!!! I am smiling right now. The disobedience of 2 Pet 1:20 is exactly right!

There is scripture that supports Purgatory. I will try to provide specifics for you.

 

[Always_For_Him]

:twocents:

One other thing I have to ask myself:

Do I trust myself enough to interpret scripture on my own? Do I have enough intellect to analyze scripture IN CONTEXT, in a way that will bring about the fullness of truth? What can private interpretation offer me, what 2,000 years of Biblical study hasn’t already taken in and considered? I’ve heard thousands of different interpretations of Holy Scripture, and after hearing all of them… Which one is correct?

To put it bluntly… Do I trust myself enough to study scripture?

That is exactly what we have been saying when we discuss the history of the Church, the councils, and so forth. There was 1500 years of same biblical study before the founding of Protestantism’s private interpretation. Add the 500 years that Catholocism has continued it’s same biblical study, that is 2,000 years that our interpretation has NEVER changed.

 

[5pintLutheran]

That is exactly what we have been saying when we discuss the history of the Church, the councils, and so forth. There was 1500 years of same biblical study before the founding of Protestantism’s private interpretation. Add the 500 years that Catholocism has continued it’s same biblical study, that is 2,000 years that our interpretation has NEVER changed.

I know, it’s just alot to take in. I also wonder what protestantism will look like in about another 500 years?

 

[savedsinner]

I know, it’s just alot to take in. I also wonder what protestantism will look like in about another 500 years?

Well, some of it is falling away from Christianity, like the Mormons, the JW’s and the oneness pentecostals, and others.
I see that when it keeps questioning the early councils, then one can create any type of religion that suits their fancy.
They also fall from the moral teachings the church has held from it’s beginning, like abortion, birth control, things like gay marriage. It will keep drifting further and further away from what is true.

 

[MIZER]

Catholic 1 seeks,

Why do we need a conclusion? If we all remain civil the moderator will let it go to at least a thousand posts. I’ve seen it on other threads. This one is very exciting. We have not one but actually two posters who are on the proverbial fence. We might witness a conversion or two. Or should I say, one conversion and one re-version. I for one am very excited about that prospect.

I’ve been arguing with the sibs for fifteen years. Long distance, on e-mail. So this is very reminiscent of that, only my sibs always cut me off claiming to have no time to read. They are so dug into their Protestantism, denying that they are protestant, denying that Christ built a visible church, denying that there is more to revelation than what the fundamentalists call “essential to salvation”, denying, denying, denying.

This thread has been a real shot in the arm for me. To have the priveldge of hearing non-C’s actually accept the answers we give as vialbe considerations one should make when discerning the truth, what a blessing. I’m not ready for a conclusion. As long as Disciple 123 and Sandusky are asking questions, I say we should give them the answers.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by 5pintLutheran
I know, it’s just alot to take in. I also wonder what protestantism will look like in about another 500 years?

This line of thought perhaps points up the greatest and best argument for the structure of the Church.
Look at the amount of fragmentation in the Protestant world in just 500 years. And this with 1500 years of Christian study and learning before the Protestant reformation even started.
What would have become of Christianity in the days immediately following the death of the apostles if the various churches had assumed a “Sola” Stance. Each independant and selecting their own scripture and interpretation.

One shudders

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Yes it somewhat does. What’s startling to know is that when I first entered the Lutheran church… I absorbed all it taught, as well as the Liturgy and sacraments (I counted 3, to be exact). I’ve been to private confession before with our pastor, but it lacked the “personal” aspect of confession I thought it would have.
During confession, I walked in and sat waiting for the pastor to get ready, and then he hands me the Lutheran Service Hymnal.
I asked what it was for, and he said that we had to read out of it for confession, which I didn’t like. I thought confession was going to be me pouring out my soul to the pastor, so he could give me comfort in the words of absolution “my son… your sins are forgiven.” It felt very vain, and afterward I still felt the despair I had before I walked in with.

We hold: Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, and confession/absolution, in the LCMS. Even saying all this, the LCMS is bracing itself for another “schism.” On one side, you have people who want a more contemporary service (praise band, casual pastor, etc…) and others, like me, who desire a more traditional service (genuflection, confession/absolution, Holy Eucharist, etc…). I’m thinking really hard about jumping ship with the whole Lutheranism thing.

Are you saying that you were not permitted to “get it all out” in a personal confession but that you were limited to the formula in the hymnal?

 

[mercygate]

Well, yes I have. I grew up Presbyterian, with ALOT of southern Baptist and Methodist friends, so I have gotten my healthy dose of the Gospel. Yes, I do believe in Jesus Christ as God.

Yes, I’ve been studying the underlying issues surrounding Mary, the Papacy, and Purgatory, and it’s been difficult to swallow.

I’ve changed my mind on Mary, and actually have come to love her… After all, if we’re to imitate Christ, and he loved his mother, then shouldn’t we as well? If Jesus didn’t love his mother, then he would be violating one of the 10 commandments. Also, if she said “all nations shall call me blessed” wouldn’t it be more biblical to call her the “blessed Virgin mother”?

The Papacy, I’ve had a tougher time with, but can see the reasoning behind the office. The papal office can be seen as unifying to both sides (catholic and Protestant) if you want to get technical. Catholics are unified in communion with the Roman pontiff, and the Protestants are unified in the sense that they aren’t in communion with the Pope. After seriously looking at the numbers, I believe that the RCC is more unified than any of the 33-38,000 different Protestant sects out there right now.

All these sects came to be b/c of what 2 Pet 1:20 says: “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” EVERY one of the Protestant churches that are kicking today, exist b/c of disobedience of 2 Pet 1:20, with the exception of the Church of England (In which that church formed b/c Henry 8 couldn’t keep it in his pants)

I think that there needs to be an authority (yes, I said it) on what is right and true. It’s just when you’re raised Protestant, it’s hard to put that out of your mind, that the Pope is the antichrist, and yada yada yada.

As for Purgatory… I don’t know quite yet how to grasp it.

Purgatory is easy and there’s plenty of scriptural back up for it. The clincher for me was the line in Revelation about “nothing impure” being admitted into the Kingdom. A lot of the “furniture” surrounding the idea of Purgatory is not doctrine. The purpose of purgatory is to cleanse the SAVED heart from every last vestige of attachment to sin. In Catholic theology (unlike the Lutheran view), we are not merely “covered” by Christ’s righteousness, but we are actually perfected by His sacrifice through the process of sanctification that continues until it’s DONE!.

Protestants object that Purgatory detracts from the Perfect Sacrifice of Christ. That is simply a caricature and absolutely not true.

Back to “the Rock.”

 

[mercygate]

:twocents:

One other thing I have to ask myself:

Do I trust myself enough to interpret scripture on my own? Do I have enough intellect to analyze scripture IN CONTEXT, in a way that will bring about the fullness of truth? What can private interpretation offer me, what 2,000 years of Biblical study hasn’t already taken in and considered? I’ve heard thousands of different interpretations of Holy Scripture, and after hearing all of them… Which one is correct?

To put it bluntly… Do I trust myself enough to study scripture?

Study Scripture by all means. THINK. Ask questions. I found that with a 2000-year tradition of reading Scripture, the Catholic tradition is indescribably rich in scriptural insight. Besides the context of Scripture is the FAITH. So the Bible starts to make sense when you read it from “the Heart of the Church” as JP-2 used to say.

 

[mercygate]

At the First Council of Nicea, (around 380-390 a.d.), an ecumenical council of the Bishops of the Universal Christian Church, the books for the Bible were confirmed and ratified.

Barista! Double espresso for my friend, JRKH. The Council of Nicea was 325 and had NOTHING to do with the canon.
These included the Deueros as well as longer versions of 2 other books. This same list of books was reconfirmed by several subsiquent councils all before the Time of the Protestant reformation. The Canon was then officially closed at the council of Trent because of the confusion brought about by Luther’s unauthorized changes. Yes: first in the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 398.

So - The Canon of the Bible was fixed by the Spirit Guided and Protected Church at 73 books. It was reconfirmed by several more councils in the first meillenium. The Canon of the Bible was changed to 66 books by one person.

With a little help from his friends.

As to the question of just when the Jewish canon was closed and what was included, there is some debate on that. It is a fact however, that the septuigent was written, was in circulation, and was used in synagoges during Jesus time. Plus there is evidence that Jesus used it and the ECF’s used it.

Peace
James

The Septuagint, with the Deuterocanon was the Bible used in the Greek-speaking world, including Palestine, in the first Century. It was the Bible Jesus and the Apostles knew, and the reason it became THE Bible for Christians is because it WAS the Bible of the apostolic Church.

The Hebrew canon was definitely not closed before the 4th Century.

 

[JRKH]

Barista! Double espresso for my friend, JRKH. The Council of Nicea was 325 and had NOTHING to do with the canon.

Mercy Mercy Me - - - Thanks for the catch!!

Mea Culpa

Peace
James

 

[savedsinner]

This line of thought perhaps points up the greatest and best argument for the structure of the Church.
Look at the amount of fragmentation in the Protestant world in just 500 years. And this with 1500 years of Christian study and learning before the Protestant reformation even started.
What would have become of Christianity in the days immediately following the death of the apostles if the various churches had assumed a “Sola” Stance. Each independant and selecting their own scripture and interpretation.

One shudders

Peace
James

Look to the eastern orthodox, who though have been separated for almost 1,000 years, still closely resemble the Catholic church with its sacraments and understanding of scripture for the most part.

 

[JRKH]

Look to the eastern orthodox, who though have been separated for almost 1,000 years, still closely resemble the Catholic church with its sacraments and understanding of scripture for the most part.

Exactly.
And why is that?
Could it be because they have the same respect for Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church that Roman Catholics Do?

The differences between East and West really revolve more around structural issues than doctinal.

Peace
James