M
MaryT777
Guest
Can you post the official Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states that 'the priest claims to have made a new sacrifice himself?"
To save you some time it doesn’t exist.
Mary.
- Status
To save you some time it doesn’t exist.
Mary.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
As a ‘strident Catholic sibling’, my issue is not with individual Lutherans, although many mistakenly take it that way. Nor do I take issue (very much) with the LCMS as a church, with the exception to their holding to all of those offensive statements about Catholics in the Lutheran Confessions.
I am very happy that the Lutherans are interested in increasing fellowship with Catholics.
But if there is ever to be a REAL communion with the Catholic Church, those extremely offensive portions of the Confessions are going to have to go. I fully recognize how HUGE a thing that would be for Lutherans to do that, but then it is going to take something THAT HUGE to overcome our differences. If Lutherans don’t want to do something really HUGE, then they don’t really want reunion all that much.
I hope that you have an understanding now of how offensive your Confessional documents are to Catholics, based on their clear and literal reading. You also have to recognize that when these documents are read by Catholics without the benefit of your ‘explanation’, they have absolutely NO CHOICE but to be offended, because, let’s be honest, they COULD have been written to confer the meaning you suggest, but they sure weren’t. In fact, there is nothing in the documents which would cause a reader to arrive at the interpretation which you are suggesting.
Don’t you think that is a problem?
Maybe what you might consider is using whatever influence you might have within your communion to have those offensive sections of your Confessions replaced with something that more represents your particular belief, without of course using the term ‘antichrist’ at all. Maybe your Confessions shouldn’t include slams on the Catholic Church. Also, for the record, as long as we are making suggestions, there is another section which is pretty indicative of the official Lutheran position:
Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article XII, Of the Church
“1] We do not condede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of the Church, they enjoin or forbid.”
If the Catholic Church was NOT ‘the Church’ (according to Official Lutheranism of the sixteenth century), then we still are not, because we have not changed ANY of the teachings that 16th century Lutheranism found so offensive.
From my perspective, the LCMS cannot solve this problem because this is a problem that is MUCH bigger than the LCMS. The Lutheran Confessions are extraordinarily clear in their meaning in regards to the Catholic Church. It would seem that the problem is that the LCMS adheres to the Lutheran Confessions. These statements in the Lutheran Confessions are a massive roadblock which must be overcome if we are ever to achieve a meaningful communion. Attempts to minimize their meaning, and thereby ignore the necessity of the Lutheran church refuting them is only making a true communion that much less likely.
So Jon, here is the most important question of all.
Could, the LCMS, if it chose to, OFFICIALLY and PUBLICALLY ALTER the Lutheran Confessions so that they would not be so offensive to Catholics?
Additionally, would you like to see that happen?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
Thank you for this; I appreciate correction when appropriate. It is good to know that the Roman Catholic Church does not view the Mass as a Sacrifice that we offer to God, but rather as one God offers/offered to us. We understand our pastors to also function in the stead and by the command of Christ, and not of themselves.
I’ll take your word for it that the RCC never taught the Mass was a sacrifice offered by humans to God. Unfortunately, there were those within the Church who misunderstood that fact in Luther’s time - so many that the Reformers were offended by the abuse. If the Mass is a sacrifice we offer to God, then it is essentially a work we do to “earn” Grace - we’d both agree that that is silly.
Perhaps Lutherans misunderstood what the RCC meant regarding the “sacrifice” of the Mass because of the abuses in the Middle Ages. It’s possible. But they certainly didn’t misunderstand the misunderstanders.
Your explanation is certainly more acceptable to my Lutheran ears than others that I have heard. Some Lutherans are already proving receptive to this understanding.Has it truly always been this way, or is the ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ simply an area where doctrine has developed?
And God bless you. If I am unable to convince you of the truth of our teaching, then my last words are simply that you be blest during this time and season of Lent, with full anticipation of the Resurrection.Lo and behold, the actual statements from the Church–don’t quite have your back on your whitewashed version of things…
Sorry to inform sir, but you’ve kinda’ discredited yourself about what Lutheranism actually believes/teaches/maintains–although you’re quite good at articulating what you wish Lutheranism actually stands for.
…and to be perfectly honest–I like your posts, Jon; I certainly like you (to the extent I can discern from your posts), much better than what I actually read about what the LCMS actually stands for.
As for your defense of Catholicism–duly appreciated; but I’m sure you’ve realized in your defense of her…that that, is a matter of Truth.
Finally, I’ll yield to you the last word in our little exchange here on this thread, as I will shortly be commencing my annual hiatus from all posting on any forums, during Lent.
(So I’ll catch y’all on the flip side of Easter).
God bless.
His peace,
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
I would like to point out that in the Eucharist is therefore a sacred meal shared by all in the presence of God. The Eucharist is a memorial and a sacrifice; as a memorial it is a sacred memory, an occasion to remember the life and death of Jesus. Jesus instructed His disciples that when they met together for meals they were to “do this in remembrance of me” It also a sacrifice since it in remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross for the sins of mankind.
The term sacrifice comes from the Latin, sacrificium which means to make something holy, that is to set apart from common usage and offer it to God. So the sacrifice is celebrating Christ’s death, in which blood was shed. In the blessing of the bread and wine the Church offered to God what it had first received, the Christ who had come into the world to offer His life for sin. So Ambrose SJ got it correct in my book!
rificum
The term sacrifice comes from the Latin, sacrificium which means to make something holy, that is to set apart from common usage and offer it to God. So the sacrifice is celebrating Christ’s death, in which blood was shed. In the blessing of the bread and wine the Church offered to God what it had first received, the Christ who had come into the world to offer His life for sin. So Ambrose SJ got it correct in my book!
rificum
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Here is an excerpt from the first English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent printed in 1687. Par. LXXXII, LXXXIII (p. 236) Italics in original.
This, like all doctrine of the Church remains constant. Development does not change doctrine, it adds depth, and deeper understanding, but never change.
This catechism was available during the onslaught of the Reformation. Indeed, it was to counter the misinformation of the Reformation that the catechism was sorely needed and promulgated by the Council of Trent.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Don,
One of the things that I have learned over the years is that it is easy to claim that this or that was taken out of context, but that it is normally much harder to provide evidence to support that claim. The subject of “Luther as a Prophet” has been dealt with to one extent or another by many Scholars.
I recognize why you would want to dismiss the idea of “Luther as a Prophet”, because it does cause people to see him in a somewhat negative light. But I can assure you that the whole issue of Luther’s ‘Prophethood’ is only one piece of a whole in which Luther makes some astonishing claims to authority.
However, in claiming that the quote in question was taken out of context, you are apparently asserting that you have some specific evidence to back up that claim. It seems then that you are aware of some information that I have not yet seen. Could you please post that evidence which causes you to claim that that quote was taken out of context. Just to make sure that we are talking about the same quote, I will post it again along with the other quote which accompanied it two days ago.
Quote:
“The following quotes are from Hartman Grisar, “Luther, Vol. IV", pgs. 334, 333
“I am he to whom God first revealed it.” Martin Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.
“And now, dear Germans, I have told you enough; you have heard your prophet; God grant we may obey His words.” Martin Luther, “Werke,” Woim. ed., 15, p. 30”
I look forward to seeing the information that shows that the quote where Luther claimed to be a prophet was taken out of context. In fact, “Luther as a Prophet” (or prophet) is extremely fascinating subject and one, I think, which offers some very important lessons.
God Bless You Don, Topper
I’m glad that you now have a better understand the nature of the Mass.
One of the things that I have learned over the years is that it is easy to claim that this or that was taken out of context, but that it is normally much harder to provide evidence to support that claim. The subject of “Luther as a Prophet” has been dealt with to one extent or another by many Scholars.
I recognize why you would want to dismiss the idea of “Luther as a Prophet”, because it does cause people to see him in a somewhat negative light. But I can assure you that the whole issue of Luther’s ‘Prophethood’ is only one piece of a whole in which Luther makes some astonishing claims to authority.
However, in claiming that the quote in question was taken out of context, you are apparently asserting that you have some specific evidence to back up that claim. It seems then that you are aware of some information that I have not yet seen. Could you please post that evidence which causes you to claim that that quote was taken out of context. Just to make sure that we are talking about the same quote, I will post it again along with the other quote which accompanied it two days ago.
Quote:
“The following quotes are from Hartman Grisar, “Luther, Vol. IV", pgs. 334, 333
“I am he to whom God first revealed it.” Martin Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.
“And now, dear Germans, I have told you enough; you have heard your prophet; God grant we may obey His words.” Martin Luther, “Werke,” Woim. ed., 15, p. 30”
I look forward to seeing the information that shows that the quote where Luther claimed to be a prophet was taken out of context. In fact, “Luther as a Prophet” (or prophet) is extremely fascinating subject and one, I think, which offers some very important lessons.
God Bless You Don, Topper
P
Peter_J
Guest
Jon can correct me if I have misunderstood him, but his ‘personal spin’ seems only in his aversion to a term that carries strange and unfortunate connotations in modern times; his words here have not contradicted what Lutheranism has consistently taught regarding what that term actually means. And I think that point that has been lost on you and several other Roman Catholic posters here.Instead of listening to us Lutherans and our Synod, you’ve assigned meanings that simply aren’t there (Last I checked, it was the LCMS -not Roman Catholic laypersons- that explains LCMS doctrine to the LCMS…
). Let’s take one more look at what the LCMS teaches - please follow with an open mind and perhaps you’ll understand what we mean:
Rather straightforward there.
Again, rather straightforward. Essentially, Lutherans consider any heterodox body to be under the influence of the spirit of anti-Christ. This does not necessarily mean that Lutherans consider Word and Sacrament to be absent in those bodies (On the contrary! We recognize your Sacraments as valid!) - only that the Truth is clouded or obscured insofar as doctrine is taught in conflict to Christ’s Word. Not terribly difficult to understand.
Here, the Treatise gives three reasons (and 38 paragraphs) why the actions and powers claimed for the Office of the Papacy are considered by Lutherans to be anti-to-Christ. Again, the understanding is that this applies insofar as these actions and powers are practiced - this is the only was to understand our beliefs. Come on, folks, this can’t mean what you’re accusing us of believing - you just read that we do not consider any individual pope as a person to be identified with the Antichrist. So long as the Office bears the marks, however, we can only assume that it will remain the source of future anti-Christ. The Synod restates its position:
And there’s the biggest point - all three of our charges against the Papacy are conditional. Some Lutherans even believe that some of the charges no longer apply. The LCMS still objects for the following reason:
And there appears to be some movement here by recent popes. I, and many of my fellow Lutherans were overjoyed to read Pope Benedict XVI’s acknowledgement of our teaching on Faith:
Cont…
Thanks for those posts, steido. FWIW, I believe that Catholicism has been misunderstood as well, vis-a-vis Trent.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Am,
I have enjoyed your comments on the Mass.
Daniel Preus wrote the article“Luther and the Mass”, which of course seems pretty germane to our discussion, but in fact it is even more so. We have been discussing the Pope as being the antichrist, Lutheran beliefs about the ‘nature’ of the Catholic Church, the Mass, and, indirectly at least, the Holy Eucharist. This 18,000 word article, from which I will provide excerpts, covers all of these subjects, which is kind of a jackpot in regards to providing actual facts for our discussion. The kicker – when Preus wrote this article, he was the First Vice President of the LCMS. Let’s face it, nobody gets to the #2 position in an organization of 2 million people without demonstrating the ability to articulately expound the ‘company line’.
It will probably take a few posts to get even a small portion of the text posted, but if people cannot stand the suspense and want to skip ahead or read the whole document to make sure that it is being represented in the ‘correct context’, it can be found at:
mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm
Luther and the Mass
Justification and the Joint Declaration
Daniel Preus
BY THE TIME THIS ARTICLE APPEARS, about two years will have passed since the signing by Rome and various Lutherans of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Few ecumenical events in recent church history have received the attention that the adoption of this document has produced. Supporters continue to laud the Joint Declaration as a major ecumenical break-through. Detractors remain no less adamant that the Joint Declaration represents no progress at all, indeed, that it is a compromise or even a concession of the worst kind. Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments supporting the latter view is that made by the Department of Systematic Theology of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana in the April 1998 issue of the Concordia Theological Quarterly. In response to a preliminary form of the Joint Declaration, it quotes from the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Gift of Salvation paper, another document produced through the dialogue process, that spells out “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” .For Lutherans it is nonsense to speak of consensus on justification if these issues remain unsettled.
One more “diverse understanding” needs to be added to the above list: that concerning the mass. In fact, nowhere else is a “diverse understanding” more dearly evident than in the positions of Lutherans and Roman Catholics on the Lord’s Supper. Nowhere is the central article of the Christian faith more powerfully impacted than in this difference. And nowhere is this difference more thoroughly described than in the writings of Martin Luther.
When Luther began to assail the mass as sacrifice, he attacked the same false soteriology that he had first condemned in the indulgence controversy a few years earlier. For Luther, the same principle was involved in both battles," ……………….
There is nothing in the sacrament of the altar that is not gospel. According to Luther it is the nature of the antichrist to rage against the gospel, and his raging is more than evident in his perversion of the sacrament. Even those moderately acquainted with Luther’s views know that he considered the pope to be the antichrist. ]To no small extent, this identification is due to the Roman doctrine of the mass. The pope altered the very nature of the Lord’s Supper. Under antichrist, it is no longer as a sacrament that bestows forgiveness; it is rather a sacrifice and a good work by means of which the antichrist and his followers deceive everybody. To turn the sacrament into a sacrifice is to pervert it utterly; it is to change grace to works and Gospel to law."………….
The doctrine of justification was at the heart of Luther’s conflict with the papacy, and eventually the mass to become central to this conflict…………….
Luther’s most strenuous objection was to the concept of mass as sacrifice. The Roman teaching that in the mass the priest offers a sacrifice and thus appeases God’s anger denies the efficacy of Christ’s atoning work. The papal mass is therefore a persistent, daily attack on the article of justification. It is an unremitting assault on the gospel and on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. It completely distorts the nature of Christianity changing it from a religion of grace to one of works……………
They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God… Furthermore, they do not regard Christ’s body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son’s body and blood. This is the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.
How has Satan achieved this perversion of the sacrament within the papal church?"
To be continued.
I have enjoyed your comments on the Mass.
Over the years I have been aware of Luther’s ‘feelings’ for the Mass, but never really believed that it was one of the central issues driving his hatred of the Church. Digging into it a little bit in the last few days has been very revealing.
Daniel Preus wrote the article“Luther and the Mass”, which of course seems pretty germane to our discussion, but in fact it is even more so. We have been discussing the Pope as being the antichrist, Lutheran beliefs about the ‘nature’ of the Catholic Church, the Mass, and, indirectly at least, the Holy Eucharist. This 18,000 word article, from which I will provide excerpts, covers all of these subjects, which is kind of a jackpot in regards to providing actual facts for our discussion. The kicker – when Preus wrote this article, he was the First Vice President of the LCMS. Let’s face it, nobody gets to the #2 position in an organization of 2 million people without demonstrating the ability to articulately expound the ‘company line’.
It will probably take a few posts to get even a small portion of the text posted, but if people cannot stand the suspense and want to skip ahead or read the whole document to make sure that it is being represented in the ‘correct context’, it can be found at:
mtio.com/articles/bissar92.htm
Luther and the Mass
Justification and the Joint Declaration
Daniel Preus
BY THE TIME THIS ARTICLE APPEARS, about two years will have passed since the signing by Rome and various Lutherans of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Few ecumenical events in recent church history have received the attention that the adoption of this document has produced. Supporters continue to laud the Joint Declaration as a major ecumenical break-through. Detractors remain no less adamant that the Joint Declaration represents no progress at all, indeed, that it is a compromise or even a concession of the worst kind. Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments supporting the latter view is that made by the Department of Systematic Theology of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana in the April 1998 issue of the Concordia Theological Quarterly. In response to a preliminary form of the Joint Declaration, it quotes from the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Gift of Salvation paper, another document produced through the dialogue process, that spells out “diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences, Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized” .For Lutherans it is nonsense to speak of consensus on justification if these issues remain unsettled.
One more “diverse understanding” needs to be added to the above list: that concerning the mass. In fact, nowhere else is a “diverse understanding” more dearly evident than in the positions of Lutherans and Roman Catholics on the Lord’s Supper. Nowhere is the central article of the Christian faith more powerfully impacted than in this difference. And nowhere is this difference more thoroughly described than in the writings of Martin Luther.
When Luther began to assail the mass as sacrifice, he attacked the same false soteriology that he had first condemned in the indulgence controversy a few years earlier. For Luther, the same principle was involved in both battles," ……………….
There is nothing in the sacrament of the altar that is not gospel. According to Luther it is the nature of the antichrist to rage against the gospel, and his raging is more than evident in his perversion of the sacrament. Even those moderately acquainted with Luther’s views know that he considered the pope to be the antichrist. ]To no small extent, this identification is due to the Roman doctrine of the mass. The pope altered the very nature of the Lord’s Supper. Under antichrist, it is no longer as a sacrament that bestows forgiveness; it is rather a sacrifice and a good work by means of which the antichrist and his followers deceive everybody. To turn the sacrament into a sacrifice is to pervert it utterly; it is to change grace to works and Gospel to law."………….
The doctrine of justification was at the heart of Luther’s conflict with the papacy, and eventually the mass to become central to this conflict…………….
Luther’s most strenuous objection was to the concept of mass as sacrifice. The Roman teaching that in the mass the priest offers a sacrifice and thus appeases God’s anger denies the efficacy of Christ’s atoning work. The papal mass is therefore a persistent, daily attack on the article of justification. It is an unremitting assault on the gospel and on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. It completely distorts the nature of Christianity changing it from a religion of grace to one of works……………
They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God… Furthermore, they do not regard Christ’s body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son’s body and blood. This is the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.
How has Satan achieved this perversion of the sacrament within the papal church?"
To be continued.
B
betsybug354
Guest
S
steido01
Guest
Topper, I don’t think your brought anything new to the discussion wth your last post… I just explained why Lutherans object to some of the ‘sacrifice’ language used in the Roman Mass. Apparently, the Roman Church has never taught the error we thought it did. Isn’t this relieving information? If this is true, then the ILC-Roman Catholic discussions will be infinitely more effective than those through the LWF. Praise be to God!
B
betsybug354
Guest
Apparently the third vice-president of the LCMS and member of the Praesidium disagrees with you.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Don,
If you would hang in there, and just read, might find that you have a ways to go before you are in sync with LCMS teaching on the Mass as a ‘sacrifice’, at least not according to your #2 guy.
Really, it sort of sounds like you would like to discourage me from posting the rest of the article, and YET, in part, I am doing it for your benefit.
God Bless You Don, Topper
BTW, I won’t forget to address your claim that Luther never said he was a prophet. The evidence of Luther’s really ‘out there’ claims to authority are extremely well documented, including from Lutheran Scholars.
Also, It seems that he was the first VP when he wrote that ‘thing’ and maybe now is the third. Of course, I will probably get yelled at if I got that wrong.
Say - you don’t think he got knocked down a couple of pegs over this article do you?
Obviously you have not read the article yet, and don’t know what the rest amounts to, even in summary. Anyway, I post an article about the very topic at hand by the #2 in your denomination and you tell me that I haven’t brought anything new? And please correct me if I am wrong here, but didn’t you admit about 30 hours ago that you hadn’t correctly understood the nature of the mass.
If you would hang in there, and just read, might find that you have a ways to go before you are in sync with LCMS teaching on the Mass as a ‘sacrifice’, at least not according to your #2 guy.
Really, it sort of sounds like you would like to discourage me from posting the rest of the article, and YET, in part, I am doing it for your benefit.
God Bless You Don, Topper
BTW, I won’t forget to address your claim that Luther never said he was a prophet. The evidence of Luther’s really ‘out there’ claims to authority are extremely well documented, including from Lutheran Scholars.
Also, It seems that he was the first VP when he wrote that ‘thing’ and maybe now is the third. Of course, I will probably get yelled at if I got that wrong.
Say - you don’t think he got knocked down a couple of pegs over this article do you?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi bb,
In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.
When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.
Someone here asked me: “Why are you doing this?” in an accusatory kind of way of course. The short answer is:
BECAUSE GOD’S ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS IMPORTANT!
The long answer is much more complete, is almost as super duper intellectual as the short answer and of course - is longer
Need I say "May God Bless You when I already know how much He HAS already?
Topper
Every Easter I get extremely emotional when I see the RCIA candidates take their first Holy Eucharist. I was you 20 years ago and I know what it has meant in my life.
In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.
When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.
Someone here asked me: “Why are you doing this?” in an accusatory kind of way of course. The short answer is:
BECAUSE GOD’S ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS IMPORTANT!
The long answer is much more complete, is almost as super duper intellectual as the short answer and of course - is longer
Need I say "May God Bless You when I already know how much He HAS already?
Topper
M
MaryT777
Guest
Topper,Hi bb,
Every Easter I get extremely emotional when I see the RCIA candidates take their first Holy Eucharist. I was you 20 years ago and I know what it has meant in my life.
In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.
When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.
Someone here asked me: “Why are you doing this?” in an accusatory kind of way of course. The short answer is:
BECAUSE GOD’S ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS IMPORTANT!
The long answer is much more complete, is almost as super duper intellectual as the short answer and of course - is longer
Need I say "May God Bless You when I already know how much He HAS already?
Topper
I loved reading about your conversion; God Bless,
Mary.
B
betsybug354
Guest
Thank you, Topper. I can very much relate to your search for the truth leading you to the Catholic Church. A couple of days ago I told the priest I have been meeting with, “Once you’ve found the Truth, there can be no going back.” If you had told me even a year ago I would become Catholic, I would have thought you were joking. It is the result of much study, prayer, and a sequence of life-changing events that I have arrived at this point. I have no doubt whatsoever that God has brought me here. I am so joyful and blessed to be nearly home.Hi bb,
Every Easter I get extremely emotional when I see the RCIA candidates take their first Holy Eucharist. I was you 20 years ago and I know what it has meant in my life.
In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.
When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.
Someone here asked me: “Why are you doing this?” in an accusatory kind of way of course. The short answer is:
BECAUSE GOD’S ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS IMPORTANT!
The long answer is much more complete, is almost as super duper intellectual as the short answer and of course - is longer
Need I say "May God Bless You when I already know how much He HAS already?
Topper
P
plitedextrosity
Guest
Just wanted to join in, with that, when I come to any forum of any type I urge to refrain from any comment that could be interpreted as though I’m condemning, but, if as Catholics we are saved by works so that we can boast, I can’t help but notice the arrogance of his judgment which he bases off his “grace alone” pedestal which comes across as boastful in itself. The pedophilia topic was a cheap jab, and I don’t personally agree w how it was handled, but I wouldn’t use that as a persuasive point being that these things happen everywhere everyday by every social cultural and economical platform…
He did have some good points, but they didn’t come out till he finished and moved on from his catholic interpretation, like the baptists theology of baptism. Raised southern baptist I never understood why we went by the name of a process or act that we didn’t take serious, a question and conversation that shunted me from a deacon and pastor at the age 13. And now 15-18 yrs later I spoke w the pastor at my cousins wedding, thru a conversation he had w my mother he responded “oh, well I saw that coming” (referring to my conversion) but he was on w it, and we spoke as though “that” conversation yrs ago never happened, we just didn’t discuss theology…uuuhhhhhh, I started to ramble here, got three off topic, again, the only reason I hate forums is bc there isn’t an individual there to interrupt and keep me on point…
He did have some good points, but they didn’t come out till he finished and moved on from his catholic interpretation, like the baptists theology of baptism. Raised southern baptist I never understood why we went by the name of a process or act that we didn’t take serious, a question and conversation that shunted me from a deacon and pastor at the age 13. And now 15-18 yrs later I spoke w the pastor at my cousins wedding, thru a conversation he had w my mother he responded “oh, well I saw that coming” (referring to my conversion) but he was on w it, and we spoke as though “that” conversation yrs ago never happened, we just didn’t discuss theology…uuuhhhhhh, I started to ramble here, got three off topic, again, the only reason I hate forums is bc there isn’t an individual there to interrupt and keep me on point…
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I don’t think it’s a question of whether Lutherans have mistaken the teaching of the Catholic Church for the last 5 centuries, which seems very unlikely. But rather WHY have they PERSISTED in this mistaken notion. That, at least, would be my question as a thoughtful Lutheran.
IOW, I would ask myself, with all of the published Catholic teaching on the Mass, since (and before) the Reformation, HOW could the Lutheran church have been so wrong?
Then I would ask myself, was this error deliberate or just negligent?
Or I would ask myself, has Lutheran teaching itself changed, yet retaining the old calumny?
And most importantly:
Would I be willing to go wherever the Truth led?
B
betsybug354
Guest
All very thought provoking questions, Ambrose. From my perspective, being raised Methodist, then becoming Presbyterian as an adult, then later switching to Lutheranism to be in the same church as my sister, I am perhaps more aware than lifelong Lutherans of the unfortunate results of the Reformation (e.g., splintering church bodies that interpret various important faith matters in sometimes opposite ways, all the while claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit).
For me, it comes down to the following questions:
Does it break God’s heart that we (Christians) are not one, as Christ prayed in his high priestly prayer?
*John 17:20-23 20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. *
If it breaks God’s heart that we are not one, then why should we celebrate the Reformation as Lutherans and other Protestants do?
The festive atmosphere surrounding Reformation Sunday in various Protestant churches is something that came to pierce my heart over the past couple of years. I believe it should be a day of mourning over our deep divisions, not a celebration.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: I was raised as a catholic and attended Catholic schools. However, while I did not really leave the Church I did not really practice my Catholic faith for nearly 25 years. I did read and study many different religious beliefs yet thought that they did not have what the Catholic Church had. I returned to my faith and the Catholic Church and have since then never looked back and am truly thankful that God never left me and did His part in getting me to return to the Faith he gave me. So your conversion to the Catholic faith is most enlightening to say the least!Hi bb,
Every Easter I get extremely emotional when I see the RCIA candidates take their first Holy Eucharist. I was you 20 years ago and I know what it has meant in my life.
In my small faith community there are 6 couples, each couple but one HAD a cradle Catholic and a convert. One was a ‘split marriage’. Now they are not. The funny thing though about the 6 and virtually all of the 100 or so converts I know - we ALL converted because we came to recognize the Church is what it claims to be. Of the dozen or so that I know who have left the Church, NONE of them left seeking an ‘improved’ doctrine. They all left for something more ‘welcoming’ or better music - you know, the really CRUCIAL stuff.
When I began my search for the Truth about 25 years ago, the LAST thing I wanted to be was a Catholic, and at the time, the idea of being a Catholic faithful to the Church was pretty unfathomable.
Someone here asked me: “Why are you doing this?” in an accusatory kind of way of course. The short answer is:
BECAUSE GOD’S ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS IMPORTANT!
The long answer is much more complete, is almost as super duper intellectual as the short answer and of course - is longer
Need I say "May God Bless You when I already know how much He HAS already?
Topper
- Status