How do Protestants and non-catholics alike believe they are in the New Covenant Jesus instituted by his body and blood, when most do not accept Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel_of_12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I too have read many of the early church fathers both eastern and western. Truly their have always been differences of opinion on religious topics, including the most famous one the “bible” and the 7 DC books, these have been argued since the lifting of the persecution of Chrisitians in the third milenium.

This forum is not adequate for personal evangelization, although God works in mysterious ways. For me this forum is an avenue to reach out to those who are misinformed about the Catholic faith, and inform the TRUTH about the Church Jesus founded upon Peter and the apostles.

History is on the side of the Catholic church when it comes to saints, martyrs, Magisterium, and Popes for the Christian faith that proves that the Catholic church has always been present since the first century.

Now interpreting history from one outside of Catholicism leaves open to many opinions and interpretations. For me, when I research Catholic teachings from antquity, I have never found them to change from what Jesus taught, and the apostles handed down to their successors. Lets not confuse doctrine with disciplines or customs which are subject to change.

What we must remember from history, is not to return and remain still in history, but give Glory to God from how much we have learned from history, and grow in faith without affecting the Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. But grow in the deeper revelations of Jesus in our time. This has always been the conflict in history when man tries to change those things the divine one gave us. That is why Jesus built his Church upon Rock, Peter and his successors, for the Catholic church has already proven from antiquity, Her Popes and Bishops would rather die a martyrs death, than to deny Jesus and his teachings.

For instance today, this post deals with the many interpretations of the true presence, and believe me, I have heard some doozies here. What I dont understand is? after 2000 years, how Christians outside the Catholic church, can come up with so many different interpretations about Jesus and his Eucharist teachings?

Peace

Ps. thanks for the book reference
 
Gabriel,

I was making no attempt at evangelization. As I mentioned earlier, I do not counsel people away from the Roman communion.

I think perhaps we’re confuting again what is Catholic and what is Roman. I would also agree that we are not to change what Christ gave us, and we know what Christ gave us through the witness of His holy Apostles and Prophets. That witness is clearest and most unequivocal in the Holy Scriptures, which is why both our communions reverence the Scriptures so highly.

As for the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church… who is the chief cornerstone-- the stone which the builders rejected? We both know that’s not Peter, but Christ. As for the Scripture reference used by Romans to substantiate Peter as the Rock upon which Christ built the Church… I tend to agree with the early Fathers such as St. Chrysostom, who clearly interpreted that passage as Christ building His Church upon the CONFESSION of St. Peter… which makes a whole lot more sense to my mind, since that brings the foundation of the Church back to Christ, rather than a deeply flawed human being. As those deeply flawed human beings bore witness to Christ, they created the canon of our Scriptures, that we like them might bear witness to Christ. Thus the measure of our catholicity is often more a measure of how close we come to the Apostolic witness of Christ that they gave to us for posterity in the Scriptures… and the Church, Catholic or otherwise, has a long history of either doing better or worse in that regard. Our day is no different. I think this is why Pope Benedict XVI could feel so free to convoke a Holy Synod on the Scriptures for the last three weeks or so, and invited Christians from many communions to join him… as well as Jews.

You are right-- the Catholic Church will endure forever. She is preserved as the Bride of Christ in every age. Her members, however, are far from infallible, and are marked by sin. History is repleat with examples of great leaders and doctors of the Church who drifted into heresy and sin… including Popes. When I said that I read the early history of the Church without a Roman perspective, I did not say that I read it without a Catholic perspective… remember, the two terms are distinct. I claim that catholicity exists in the Lutheran communion, as I also recognize it in the Roman communion. I think our difference is our appreciation of how much catholicity exists in our respective communions-- you may likely argue that catholicity is rooted in communion with the Bishop of Rome and that Lutherans are in breach and schism-- I would argue, however, that insisting the Church be Roman to be Catholic (Universal) is itself a schismatic and un-catholic act, which is the root division between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox as well as the other Christian communions that developed after the Reformation. If we could both turn our eyes to Christ, rather than the particular leaders of our respective communions (while we continue to honor and revere our ecclesial leaders, of course,) we might find again that unity upon which the Catholic Church is always built, which is Jesus Christ Himself. The rest of the pieces will eventually work themselves out over time, as the Spirit convicts each of us of our sin, and brings us to repentance.

As for the Supper… well, yeah, there are a lot of wacky ideas out there. Lutherans confess a simple and very real presence, that is in conformity with the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. Romans confess a more complicated but also very real presence. This particular issue is not a significant one between Romans and Lutherans.

What is a major issue, is the debate about what the Church is built upon, and the role of the Bishop of Rome. The bishops of the Church, from antiquity to today, are ordained and charged with defending the Apostolic Faith as it has been handed down to them, and as it is revealed in Holy Scripture, and pastoring the sheep of Christ. The Bishop of Rome has no different requirement than any other Bishop in that regard. If you would like to flip through the Lutheran Confessions online, including the short Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, they are in an easily navigated PDF form here, complete with links to the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession:

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc.html#sc

You may find that Lutheran confessional theology is not so far removed from our common Catholic history as you have been led to believe. However, you will certainly see the violence of the conflict of the Reformation… and that sin existed in all aspects of that engagement, including Roman and Lutheran circles.

Grace and peace to you, my friend,
Brad
 
stbruderkaus;

Quite interesting. I am trying to keep it simple here. Taken a Lutheran view of scripture, Jesus instituted a Church upon Peter in Mathew 16:16…, Jesus instituted the Eucharist. We have a historical record from eyewitness accounts about the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter. Fact: history records an unbroken line of Popes since Peter to today.

This is my point in all this. The Roman Church along with her martyrs and saints, including the first 30 Popes were martryed because the Jews and Pagan Rome always sought the life of the successor of Peter in the Pope to destroy the Christians Leader.

How is it that a Lutheran, after 1500 years Roman Catholicism, pretend to take upon himself authority too? 1. remove books from the bible, 2. Proclaim new Chrisitian ideologies never heard of from the first century church, such as “Sola Scriptura” because there was no new testament, although some non catholics would argue there was no approved old testament either. Now from scripture, Jesus did not state he will build his church upon “Luther”, Jesus did not command “Luther” to teach, feed his sheepfold. Jesus did all these things and more to Peter and his successors and apostles. One can argue by using “Sola Scriptura” Peter is prince of the apostles according to Jesus, supported by apostolic Tradition.

To argue the Bishop of Rome does not have authority, when Jesus in “Sola Scriptura” clearly gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of God, and the Power to bind and loose, Goes against Jesus teachings. Yes Jesus gives this power also to forgive sins to the apostles, but Jesus singularly gives it to Peter before His passion and after the resurrection. Had Jesus given it to Thomas, Mark, Paul, Bartholemew or another, this poor fellow would be experiencing authority problems just like the Roman Poniff has through out history, even God’s enemies knew and know who to address as Christian authority in the world, The Roman Pope successor of Peter.

Any how, consider this? When one raises an argument against the Pope, consider by what authority one comes against the Pope and Jesus teachings.

For example; By what authority Lutherans took with them some things what is Catholic, but removed themselves from unbroken succesion from the apostles, and by what authority did Luther have to invent new Christian idelogies of Sola Scriptura, Sola fe?

Unless you can prove that Jesus never built his church upon Peter. What authority can you raise, to rebuke the Pope’s God given authority? It cant be Luther, because God did not give Luther any authority, only worldly kings and princes gave Luther authority. The divine given authority will suffer much, than a worldly given authority, but the one given divine authority will remain always. Think about it? where is Martin Luther’s church today? Martin Luther is dead and dust. Peter and his successor in the Pope still lives unchanged, just grown in revelations from the teachings of Jesus throughout the ages.

Peace be with you
 
stbruderklaus said:
Oops… quick correction…

That link above is a linked html version of the confessions, and still a good one.

The PDF version is linked here:

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/TrigBOC.pdf

Cheers,
Brad
Click to expand...
I read your site. Does not speak as one with divine authority, Mostly one in protest,or rebellion against the Roman Catholic Pope.

During and after reading the site, the question kept coming up? by What authority does the Lutheran give it self authority to interpret scripture from the books, the Catholic church canonized?

I have to admit, I studied these scriptures and the Lutheran intertpretation does not follow Sacrd Tradtion, let alone the context. For example; When the two disciples were arguing about the sitting on the right hand or left hand of Jesus has nothing what so ever to do with Peter and the other apostles, but the commentary you’ve given states differently?

Again, Lutherans question the divine given authority given to Peter and his successors, and the Roman Catholic church questions, By what authority did Luther, when he left Rome, why did he pick and chose to take with him what is Roman Catholic, and reject books from the canonized Catholic bible, and change Christian belief’s by introducing “Sola fe, Sola Scriptura”. By what authority do Lutherans question Peter’s God given authority in the Roman Catholic Pope?

Peace be with you
 
Gabriel,

Better theologians than we have been chewing these issues for a long time. I will try to honor your request, but if I fail, please forgive me.

The Church, and what it is built upon-- that’s a key issue of the Reformation. Both our traditions confess that the Church is built fundamentally on Christ. Anything less would be un-Christian.

Where we seem to disagree, at least in this sequence, is how authority is passed from Christ to His Church. The Power of the Keys is cleary given to the Apostles-- again, both our traditions accept this. I think the Roman argument, at least after the Council of Trent (1500 years after the Apostles) is that this authority flows singly through the bishop of Rome as St. Peter’s successor-- but that’s a tough theory to substantiate. There’s no evidence of it in Scripture or the early Church Fathers. To the contrary, the early Church supports the concept that the Bishops, in succession from the Apostles, in the context of the Church, exercise the Power of the Keys both singly as bishops in their own diocese, and collectively when they gather in coucil. If authority really flowed the way Rome claims it does now, then there would be no reason for the early ecumenical councils, since the infallible heir of St. Peter could make pronouncements of his own that would guide the entire Church. This is not what we find, however. On the contrary, councils upbraided popes from time to time, even expressly excommunicating one.

As for Luther, no Lutheran claims he has any authority at all… and that seems to confuse Romans a bit. Luther was a regularly ordained Augustinian monk, a priest, and a professor of theology and Sacred Scripture. What authority he wielded in was commensurate with his office as a priest and professor. His calling was to point people to Christ, and he used the Holy Scriptures to do so… in this, he was very much in line with the great Fathers of the ancient Church.

As for your specific issues against Luther, one must keep in mind the spirit of the age. Luther was a fiery German preacher… the Bishop of Rome was complicit in the murder and torture of thousands. There was bound to be conflict between the two, and the fact that the German princes gave him safe harbor (so the Pope couldn’t murder him, no matter how hard he tried…) gives rise to some very polemical writings between Romans and Germans.

As with most subjects, the Solas of the Lutheran Reformation are often misunderstood… sometimes intentionally. Scripture alone refers to doctrinal authority in the Church, much in concert with the way the early Fathers used the Scriptures to set the canons of the early councils. Faith alone and Grace alone are used much the way St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Chrysostom use the terms, refering to salvation as a work of God that we cannot boast of, and that we receive this gift of God alone through Christ by a living faith that works itself out in love of God and neighbor. There is nothing alien to the Scriptures nor the early Church in these teachings. By contrast, the selling of indulgences, and the idea that people can gain for themselves extra grace and merit by their hard work, which can then in turn be sold or distributed to others is so alien to the early Church Fathers that one can’t find a lick of it in their writings… anywhere, as far as I know.

As for removing books from the Bible… Luther never did this (Luther’s translation of the Bible into German included the Apocrypha.) Lutherans, however, follow St. Jerome’s lead when we recognize that the Apocryphal works of the canon are useful, but of lesser character than the other canon. I have a copy of the Septuagint that I read regularly, which contains all the Apocryphal works. Like the early Fathers, however, I recognize that they are useful, while I do not hold them on the same par as the established Hebrew and NT canon. Again, this is the witness of the early Church Fathers.

When Lutherans and Romans come down to brass tacks, it almost always comes down to the issue of authority. In the 16th century, the Pope claimed that he “held both swords,” and that he could rule worldly kingdoms with the same arbitrary command as he pressumed in the Western Church. Remeber, when the Pope arrogated to himself a sense of dominion over the other great eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, he precipitated the Great Schism of 1054. When his thirst for power consumed all of Europe in the 16th century, he precipitated the Reformation.

In our day, the pope does not pretend to claim the power of crowning kings and establishing secular governments… outside Vatican City, anyway. He also functions much more collegially with his brother bishops around the world, and even in other communions. He still pretends, however, to hold himself unnaccountable to any ecclesial review, and holds himself as supreme even over an ecumenical council… until he loses these last vestiges of pride, we cannot expect the Christian world to heal its division.

By the way, not all Lutherans cut themselves off from Apostolic Succession in the Historic Episcopate… there are quite a few of us that still retain our physical links to Apostolic antiquity. Even Rome is not so high minded to claim that Apostolic Succession exists only inside her communion. There is no Church founded on Luther-- but Lutheran Christians experience the Church as Christ founded it upon the Apostles, where the Scriptures are clearly preached, and the Sacraments administered according to Christ’s command. Lutherans are simple confessional catholics of the Augsburg Confession, whom Rome has decided to purge from her communion. Perhaps someday, she will welcome us back, when unity means more than power to her.

Peace to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top