Irritated by "sheep stealing"

[GodIsGracious]

*Mostly true !!! Though, the reason I believe Paul was preaching replacement theology is due to the fact that he WAS preaching replacement theology. Very true though that I do not believe Jesus was the Messiah that the Jewish were waiting for… after all, what was spread about Jesus caused them more loss than it did gain. Thus, he could not be THEIR Messiah… since the Messiah spoken of in their Scripture was for THEM… it stands to reason that it was not Jesus. I believe their Messiah to be Israel as is evidenced all throughout the Tanakh. *
**
It is only a matter of time before people start waking up to this fact and all these prophecies will become a reality before our eyes… just not in the mystical way that most of you christians envision… sorry that God’s ways are a mundane thing to you.

Sorry that God’s ways can not be more mystical for you.

 

[simplynoone]

Sorry that God’s ways can not be more mystical for you.

*It’s okay! I am quite content that God works within the ways He has established. It has shown me what the Truth is… He is the solid Rock upon which I stand, as opposed to the men and women of which most religions are based on. *

 

[crossedsabres]

I might be twisting this thread off to a new discussion, but…

To all you Evangelicals, do ALL of you really believe that the Catholic Church is not the a Christian church?

Fellow Catholics, is there anyway to convince the Evangelicals that we are their brethren in the faith? My very good friend is a Catholic whose family converted to Evangelicalism when he was young. He is now an anti-Catholic Evangelical, though we have prayed together and have had lengthy talks about faith, Bible quotes, etc. Whenever I turn the discussion to anything specifically Catholic, he suddenly gets quiet and sometimes will start getting defensive and allude that there is no salvation in the Catholic Church unless I “convert” to “Christianity”.
So is there anything I can say that will make him believe that Catholics are their brethren in the faith?

 

[GodIsGracious]

*It’s okay! I am quite content that God works within the ways He has established. It has shown me what the Truth is… He is the solid Rock upon which I stand, as opposed to the men and women of which most religions are based on. *

If you think you’re slapping us in the face, you’re not. Honestly, even those who do not believe that God exists would tell you the same thing.

 

[GodIsGracious]

*It’s okay! I am quite content that God works within the ways He has established. It has shown me what the Truth is… He is the solid Rock upon which I stand, as opposed to the men and women of which most religions are based on. *

BTW, why are you here?

 

[SonofMonica]

I just want to get something straight. Are you saying that all Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, have a shot at eternal life, but Catholicism simply presents the “best shot” at it? Do you believe a Protestant can still make it to heaven if they refuse to "receive God the way he presents himself to the Catholic Church’?

I’m not quite saying precisely that, but you’ve got it more correct than not. We are all sinners saved by God’s grace. God is the ultimate judge. We can only teach the good news as we’ve received it. God decides who goes to heaven, but if he’s taught us the truth, we must proclaim it. Of course protestants can go to heaven. Will they? I don’t know. They certainly are less equipped. That we know from the apostles’ teaching of the sacraments. But are they automatically denied access? Of course not.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I might be twisting this thread off to a new discussion, but…

To all you Evangelicals, do ALL of you really believe that the Catholic Church is not the a Christian church?

Fellow Catholics, is there anyway to convince the Evangelicals that we are their brethren in the faith? My very good friend is a Catholic whose family converted to Evangelicalism when he was young. He is now an anti-Catholic Evangelical, though we have prayed together and have had lengthy talks about faith, Bible quotes, etc. Whenever I turn the discussion to anything specifically Catholic, he suddenly gets quiet and sometimes will start getting defensive and allude that there is no salvation in the Catholic Church unless I “convert” to “Christianity”.
So is there anything I can say that will make him believe that Catholics are their brethren in the faith?

No most don’t believe that the Catholic church is not Christian. That is the straw man argument put up so a easy wack can be taken. The general belief is it isn’t the “church or denomination” your parents dragged you to, or what ritual action you performed on cue it is what is in your heart that is important. With that understanding an evangelic is just as likely to steal a sheep from his home church, assuming that member is just going through the motions to look good to a man, as he is to steal a sheep from another fellowship of Christians.

 

[GodIsGracious]

No most don’t believe that the Catholic church is not Christian. That is the straw man argument put up so a easy wack can be taken. The general belief is it isn’t the “church or denomination” your parents dragged you to, or what ritual action you performed on cue it is what is in your heart that is important. With that understanding an evangelic is just as likely to steal a sheep from his home church, assuming that member is just going through the motions to look good to a man, as he is to steal a sheep from another fellowship of Christians.

I can understand this because a lot of non-Catholic Christians, who don’t understand Mass or see varying forms of prayer (a rosary, etc.) as some sort of rote action and done “on cue.” When you (general “you”, not “you” specifically 4Squarebaby ) don’t understand what is going on when you see a Catholic at Mass (because Mass IS structured) it may not seem like it is done from the heart.

Yes, a lot of Catholics do go to Mass because they’re “supposed to.” But we can’t judge who is simply going through the motions or not, only God can.

One thing I learned from my very Catholic grandmother was, “Know in your heart what God knows is true.” i.e. Be honest, and it is what is in your heart that matters - your motives.

So I can see where a non-Catholic christian may have a misunderstanding of what is going on. The Catholic church is so rich that sometimes many Catholics themselves don’t know what’s going on. But just because they don’t know doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.

 

[SonofMonica]

So is there anything I can say that will make him believe that Catholics are their brethren in the faith?

Feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. Take care of the sick.

By their fruits ye shall know them… still holds true today. I cannot tell you the number of times God has brought me to a greater understanding or brought me back to the fold by simple acts of charity done by other folks. Not the “let’s all band together and go on a mission trip/six flags” type charity. I mean the simple stuff that no one sees. It will be seen, and it will touch more lives than you will ever know.

 

[Augie1530]

I have noticed that one thought or group this posting has failed to mention in “Sheep stealing” are the famous college campus groups : Campus Crusade for Christ and Inter Varsity Christian fellowship My experiences with those I guess was a typical Scene: Your sitting alone waiting for a class to start and suddenly some very hyper guy or girl or guy and girl come up to you and immediately slam THEIR religion in your face, well you freak out and sit back and say Wait a minuet …I go to ________Church with my family and have done so since I was 2 years old. But Dude theys say …Your Not saved… You need to have JEEZUS come into your life and go to OUR CHURCH GROUP . Dude you Reply I just told you my family and I go to ____Church. Immediately they replay their programmed conversion speach to you and bring out the tracts and try to convert you . I told the one who confronted me that my family was Anglican/Lutheran and We have very different processes converting others to the faith and that he was waisting his time trying to convert me and I was a Bible believing confirmed Anglican/Lutheran . He then asked me what confirmation was, I briefly told him it was the public confession of faith made in the church in font of GOD the congregation , your family and the pastor after a 3 month class in christian doctrine history and teachings. I had the feeling this not only straightend him out but probably blew him away with new understanding of churches

 

[Contarini]

1. The Church does not “disallow” protestants to receive the Eucharist. Protestants exclude themselves by virtue of choosing to remain protestant.

You’re playing word games. Anyone can turn words around this way to blame the victim. You could just as well argue that Catholics were not denied civil rights in England between the Reformation and 1829–they denied these rights to themselves by choosing to remain loyal to Rome.

Why would anyone want to receive something they do not believe in

If we don’t believe in Jesus, then we are not Christians and you should have the guts to say so. But if you really wanted just to exclude those Protestants who don’t believe in the Real Presence, you could say something like this: “We believe that we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. If you don’t believe this, you may want to stay in your pew.” Protestants who don’t believe in the Real Presence indeed usually don’t want to receive the Eucharist in Catholic churches. You don’t need an extra rule to exclude them. And where would be the harm in people receiving what they thought was a symbol of the Christ in whom they fervently believe? Are you so afraid of God giving people more than they think they are getting? However, many of us do believe in the Real Presence–yet we are still not allowed to receive Communion.

from an organization they would not be a part of?

The Eucharist is not the sacrament of an “organization”–it’s the sacrament of the Body of Christ. You believe that the Roman Communion is the Body of Christ. Well and good. Stick to your guns. But then don’t make this spurious claim that you somehow have a gentler view of us than we do of you. We recognize you as members of the Catholic Church (along with us). You don’t recognize us as members of the Catholic Church. And outside the Church there is no salvation. You can tinker with this and nuance it, and that’s fine. (I nuance it too–I don’t think that non-Christians necessarily go to hell.) But the hard truth is that you believe we are not members of the Church which is Christ’s Body and the divinely appointed means of salvation. If you didn’t believe this, you would offer us the Eucharist.

The non-receipt of the Catholic Eucharist by a non-Catholic is simply a non-issue.

It’s a non-issue for you. It’s also a non-issue for anti-Catholic Protestants, and as you note for some Protestants who aren’t necessarily anti-Catholic but who are “grossed out” by Catholic belief about the Eucharist. It is very much an issue for those of us who believe in the Real Presence and in the necessity of the Church for salvation. And since you believe in both of these things, it seems to me that it ought to be an issue for you as well.

 

[Contarini]

1. Recognizing that someone is a Christian does not mean you have to recognize there is more than one Church.

Saying that there are Christians outside the Catholic Church does in my opinion imply that there is more than one church. I recognize that your Communion has avoided this dilemma by claiming that we are Christians by virtue of our imperfect union with the one Church. But I don’t think this is theologically sound. It makes the Church an invisible, almost Gnostic entity. It is a cure worse than the disease. A more orthodox position would be to admit that the clear presence of Christian piety in an organized and communal form outside the Roman Communion disproves the claim that the Roman Communion is the Catholic Church. Yes, that involves a break with tradition–but in my opinion a less radical one than the one represented by the “invisible, imperfect union with the true Church” theory.

I do not believe that there is more than one Church. There are many local churches, of course, but all of these are part of the one Catholic Church. Unfortunately, local churches are often divided from each other. Denominations are not churches–they are merely collections of local churches.

Catholics do not view the Church as their own, and see no authority for starting any new church, period. Christ created the first and only one, in Catholic eyes. So the non-recognition of other “true churches” is simply a non-issue.

No one wants you to recognize “other true churches.” That’s a misstatement of the issue. (Unless you are talking about true local churches.)

1. The way I understand it, a Catholic’s attempt to get a protestant to “come home” is not an attempt to have the (say, Methodist) “switch” to Catholicism from Methodism.

You may not want to put it that way, but you haven’t given a reason why this is an inaccurate way of putting it.

This is why it is termed “reconcile” or “enter into full communion” with the Catholic Church. Not in the Catholic Church is not in the Catholic Church, period. Catholic doctrine is not equivocal upon this point.

Actually, post-Vatican-II teaching is equivocal on this point–or at least nuanced.

One may be a baptized believing Christian without being a part of the Church (although it does not, according to Catholic doctrine, mean that person is going to heaven),

Yes, it does. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Your Communion (rightly) refuses to throw out this traditional principle. Instead, it has nuanced the statement that Protestants are outside the Church.

although imperfect “communion” with the Church may vary by degree, based upon the extent the person has already accepted Catholic doctrine.

If you have “imperfect communion” with the Church then you aren’t simply outside it. Furthermore, your understanding of “imperfect communion” seems purely intellectual. Again, you defend an overly spiritualized view of the Church.

However, the person’s involvement (apart from baptism) in another community of Christians, say the Methodist Church,

The “Methodist Church” isn’t a church (yes, many Methodists would disagree–but Methodists are generally very bad at ecclesiology). There is the universal Church and there are local churches. Nothing in between is a church in the strict, theological sense of the word. So forget about a convenient abstraction like “the Methodist Church.” Focus on a specific Methodist congregation–an assembly of Christians in a particular place and time around the Word and Sacraments.

has no bearing on the issue of entering into full communion with the Church, except to the extent it may affect the catechesis necessary to receive the Sacraments.

Again, this is a spiritualized (I’m trying to restrain myself from saying “Gnostic”) view of the Church. It’s not orthodox. Participation in a local community matters, because it’s the only way to be a Christian. Solitary Christianity is not Christianity–it’s a self-created religion which borrows many beliefs from Christianity. You value the Church too little. You are too Protestant in your ecclesiology, and that’s how you are able to take such a gentle view of Protestants.

Edwin

 

[SonofMonica]

You’re playing word games. Anyone can turn words around this way to blame the victim. You could just as well argue that Catholics were not denied civil rights in England between the Reformation and 1829–they denied these rights to themselves by choosing to remain loyal to Rome.

It isn’t the same. Those Catholics didn’t reject the authority of England. England changed the rules. By contrast, the Church of England rejected the authority of Rome. Rome didn’t change the rules.

If we don’t believe in Jesus, then we are not Christians and you should have the guts to say so.

I do say so. When was that ever in dispute?

But if you really wanted just to exclude those Protestants… many of us do believe in the Real Presence–yet we are still not allowed to receive Communion.

What are you missing at the Episcopal Church that makes you want to receive from a Catholic altar?

from an organization they would not be a part of?

You’re saying the Roman Catholic Church is a mere “organization,” but you’re implying that the Anglican Communion, with the State-controlled Church of England and all the democratically-governed national provinces that spawned from the Church of England are not? Get serious… The Church in communion with Rome is an organization, and the Anglican Communion is another organization. It’s not as though the Anglican Communion rejects hierarchical structures, bishops, and the like. It has set up its own.

We recognize you as members of the Catholic Church (along with us).

Thanks, but I can’t start a football league called the English Football League and then complain when the NFL doesn’t invite the teams in my EFL to its Superbowl. The NFL can’t complain if I hold my own championship game, but it certainly is not required to allow my teams to compete alongside its own for the Prize, especially if our teams play by different rules than those in the NFL.

But the hard truth is that you believe we are not members of the Church which is Christ’s Body and the divinely appointed means of salvation. If you didn’t believe this, you would offer us the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church offers communion to Catholics in good standing with the Catholic Church and who present themselves as though they are in a state of grace. The fact that you are in the Anglican Communion has absolutely nothing to do with it–no more than the fact that you may be a fireman.

 

[Contarini]

It isn’t the same. Those Catholics didn’t reject the authority of England. England changed the rules. By contrast, the Church of England rejected the authority of Rome. Rome didn’t change the rules.

You seem to view the Church as a kind of club that gets to make “rules” for how it is governed. The Church is the Body of Christ. Who made or changed the rules is not the point. The theological point I’m making is that if people are Christians, they are members of the Church. Period. You can’t be a Christian and not a member of the Church. This is one of the most basic teachings of the historic Catholic Church.

I do say so

I meant that you should have the guts to say that we are not Christians.
In the Eucharist you receive Jesus. (I think we do as well, but we don’t need to argue that here.)
Protestants believe in Jesus.
Therefore your claim that Protestants would be receiving something they “don’t believe in” is false. You are making the same kind of mistake that Protestants have made in the past when they accused Catholics of idolatry: focusing on differences about whether and how Jesus is present rather than on the common faith in Jesus which is the basis for the Eucharist.

What are you missing at the Episcopal Church that makes you want to receive from a Catholic altar?

Three responses to this rather odd question:

1. The Episcopal Church is nothing more than a collection of local churches bound together by particular traditions and heritage. Why are you so hung up on this?
2. In the Creed we Episcopalians do not profess faith in the Episcopal Church, but in the Catholic Church.
3. I’m missing plenty of things in the Episcopal Church. Division hurts us all. But that’s not really the issue in terms of receiving communion. The point is that if we are members of the Catholic Church, then this needs to be shown by Eucharistic fellowship with other members of the Catholic Church. And if we aren’t, then we do not have a genuine relationship with Christ, because such a relationship is only possible in the Catholic Church, according to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.

You’re saying the Roman Catholic Church is a mere “organization,” but you’re implying that the Anglican Communion, with the State-controlled Church of England and all the democratically-governed national provinces that spawned from the Church of England are not?

No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. You are the one who used the odd “organization” language. You are the one who repeatedly talks about rules and compares the Church (below) to a football league. My point is that the Eucharist is not the sacrament of a mere organization. It’s the sacrament of the Church. Period. You think that your Communion in some sense *is *the Church (or more technically that the Church subsists in your Communion). We do not think this about our Communion. Which is why Anglicans would never speak of the Eucharist as the sacrament of the Anglican Communion, and why I for one think it bizarre that you assume that an Anglican would only want to receive communion in a non-Anglican church if something were “missing” in Anglicanism.

While I do not believe that your Communion simply is the Church, I wouldn’t describe either of our Communions primarily as “organizations.” The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, is an organization and little else, which is why I don’t care that much about it (just as you probably don’t have a strong attachment to the USCCB as an ecclesiological entity, though I hope you respect its pronouncements).

As for your football analogy, it’s frankly frivolous. The definition of the Catholic Church is a theological question, not a question of patented brand names. You maintain that communion with Rome is essential to participation in the Catholic Church, but you can’t bring yourself to say that communion with Rome is essential to a saving relationship with Christ. Hence, you abandon the more ancient and fundamental claim (that one cannot have a saving relationship with Christ on earth outside the Catholic Church) in order to save the less important claim about the centrality of communion with Rome. All your arguments about naming rights are trivial by comparison with this issue, which you seem unwilling to face.

The Catholic Church offers communion to Catholics in good standing with the Catholic Church and who present themselves as though they are in a state of grace. The fact that you are in the Anglican Communion has absolutely nothing to do with it–no more than the fact that you may be a fireman.

Then why call me a Christian at all? Are you seriously mantaining that one can be, in a theological and salvific sense, a Christian, purely as an individual? How can you possibly square this with the historic teaching of the Catholic Church?

Edwin

 

[SonofMonica]

You seem to view the Church as a kind of club that gets to make “rules” for how it is governed. The Church is the Body of Christ.

The Church is simultaneously the Body of Christ and a rule-making authority. The two, according to the “most basic teachings of the historic Catholic Church” are not in conflict or in any way mutually exclusive. It is the former from which the latter is derived.

The theological point I’m making is that if people are Christians, they are members of the Church. Period. You can’t be a Christian and not a member of the Church. This is one of the most basic teachings of the historic Catholic Church. I meant that you should have the guts to say that we are not Christians.

Hmm… methinks you need to re-examine this statement in light of the concept of anathema. You’re pretty far out there with this. Sounds like Katharine Jefferts Schori’s babbling on about the ministry of all baptized people being equivalent. I just don’t understand why folks think that baptism is the end of the story… It simply isn’t.

In the Eucharist you receive Jesus. (I think we do as well, but we don’t need to argue that here.)
Protestants believe in Jesus.
Therefore your claim that Protestants would be receiving something they “don’t believe in” is false.

This is, quite simply, nonsense. To say that the two ideas: “Catholics believe the Eucharist is Jesus” and “Protestants believe in Jesus” are some how equivocal is completely non-sensical and un-ecumenical in every sense.

You are making the same kind of mistake that Protestants have made in the past when they accused Catholics of idolatry: focusing on differences about whether and how Jesus is present rather than on the common faith in Jesus which is the basis for the Eucharist.

You’re attributing some sort of argument to me that I haven’t made, here.

1. The Episcopal Church is nothing more than a collection of local churches bound together by particular traditions and heritage. Why are you so hung up on this?

Simply not true. You’re talking to a former Episcopalian. I have a full understanding of the provincial nature of the Anglican Communion.

The point is that if we are members of the Catholic Church, then this needs to be shown by Eucharistic fellowship with other members of the Catholic Church.

By all Catholic measure, you are not.

And if we aren’t, then we do not have a genuine relationship with Christ, because such a relationship is only possible in the Catholic Church, according to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.

Do you want me to say that, though you may be baptized, you are not a Christian? That you do not attempt to follow Christ? I don’t understand why you are “hung up” on wanting me to say that. I don’t find it to be true. We are all attempting to follow Christ. Being inside the Church most certainly does not assure salvation.

No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. You are the one who used the odd “organization” language.

That is false, and apparently so to anyone with the semblence of a scroll button. You said this in reference to the Roman Catholic Church:

The Eucharist is not the sacrament of an “organization”–it’s the sacrament of the Body of Christ.

…

You think that your Communion in some sense *is *the Church (or more technically that the Church subsists in your Communion). We do not think this about our Communion.

Nor could you, with any semblance of credibility. You have given no reason why the Anglican Communion should be treated any differently than those the Church has anathematized centuries before for similar if not identical reasons.

While I do not believe that your Communion simply is the Church, I wouldn’t describe either of our Communions primarily as “organizations.” The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, is an organization and little else…

Ah, yes. I suppose you are in a conservative Episcopal diocese and subscribe to the whole “the diocese is the Church” thing so you can ignore the fact that +KJS and 90% of the Episcopal Church preach heretical doctrine… an Anglo-Catholic’s lozenge. Excuse me if I don’t swallow it. Overlapping jurisdiction (i.e., having a Catholic bishop and an Anglican bishop) simply isn’t part of the historic teaching of the Church you seem to want to otherwise trumpet.

All your arguments about naming rights are trivial by comparison with this issue, which you seem unwilling to face.

Naming rights? My football analogy wasn’t about naming rights. I’m saying you can’t teach something different about the nature of the Church, about the Eucharist, and about the rules of the Church, and expect to commune at the Church’s altar.

Then why call me a Christian at all? Are you seriously mantaining that one can be, in a theological and salvific sense, a Christian, purely as an individual?

Neither I, nor the Church, has claimed that being a Christian, or being a Catholic, will necessarily gain you salvation. We are all judged. Some of us will be judged for helping to further split the body of Christ, and some of us will not. I left the Episcopal Church, and hope to be counted in the latter group.

 

[PRmerger]

*Well, seeing that Jesus confirmed Judaism (Matthew 5:17-19) and not what Paul taught… I’d have to say that Paul and his followers are the ones promoting replacement theology. *

I’m not familiar with the term “replacement theology”, but it seems as if, at least in this thread, it’s used as a pejorative.

In my mind, there’s nothing wrong with Christianity being branded a “replacement theology”, if the “original theology” does not bear witness to the fullness of truth.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

All Catholics are spirit-filled? All Catholics are in a state of grace at this moment? This is a pretty astonishing claim.

Catholicism is spirit-filled, of course. Whether or not an individual Catholic is, I don’t know and I can’t judge (sorry if my wording on that matter is faulty). If there is an answer to “Are all Catholic are spirit-filled”, then I believe 100% what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject.

You have created a half-and-half theology in recent years, compromising your historical stance without genuinely embracing Protestants as members of Christ’s Body. Edwin

By “you”, do you mean the Catholic Church? I love the Catholic Church. I’m greatful to God for the theology given to her, and for the dogmas, etc. I don’t believe the Catholic Church accepts half-and-half theology. She is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[SonofMonica]

I don’t believe the Catholic Church accepts half-and-half theology. She is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Don’t worry, La-Petite-Fleur. Half-and-half theology would be something like fancying yourself an Anglican and a Catholic at the same time and expecting others to agree. I don’t think you’ve got anything to worry about.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Of course protestants can go to heaven. Will they? I don’t know. They certainly are less equipped.

Do we go to Heaven because we’re “equipped” or because we’re forgiven by God, reconciled to Him through Christ’s atonement on our behalf, and adopted as sons of God?

How does one become “equipped” to go to Heaven?

 

[SonofMonica]

Do we go to Heaven because we’re “equipped” or because we’re forgiven by God, reconciled to Him through Christ’s atonement on our behalf, and adopted as sons of God?

How does one become “equipped” to go to Heaven?

I am simply referring to the sacraments, the physical means that God uses to convey grace to sinners. Nothing more, nothing less.