I’ll second that. So he would admit freely that he could be wrong on the doctrine of sola scriptura, sola fide, purgatory, papal infallibility, Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, his entire interpretation of Scripture, faith & works, etc., etc.?
As far as I know, the reformed view is that Communion is only symbolic? That’s the way it started with Zwingli and Calvin anyway.
Then we agree on purgatory, good.We give a name to it too.
We call it justification by faith and salvation by grace through faith.
The Rapture goes against scripture its self. The lord himself shall come from Heaven with a shout and we who alive shall rise to meet The Lord in the air. This means that our leaving and the second coming are at the same time.
)Yes.
I’ll let Luther himself answer that question for me:
Ecclesia Anglica. Part of the Worldwide Catholic Church. It still is part of Christs body whatever any pope says.
But there is a problem. Luther felt that his interpretation of Scripture was not in error. Why should one adhere to Luther’s interpretations over and above the early Church Councils and early Church Fathers?
So by calling St. James Epistle an “Epistle of Straw”, was that Scripture infallible to Luther also?
Are you sure you are not Lutheran?You know, even though I’m a Catholic myself I’ve always been debating about some teachings of the Catholic church. And the points brought up by East Anglican in Page 5 seem to cover many of them. You see…
Yup. I do believe it’s written in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” And if anyone says that it gives permission to go on sinning because we have received the saving Grace, just read John 14:12 - Jesus said “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” That covers the fact that we can’t go on sinning and believe that we will still go to heaven when we die. Besides, Romans 3:20 says “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” So what I don’t get is why isn’t honest repentance when we do slip up and sin (I admit, I’m not perfect and I do sin no matter how I try not to!) addressed to God in our prayer enough?
I’m still not convinced of purgatory. The Bible verses that are quoted to support it sounds just too loose to me. They don’t give any solid view into whether there is purgatory or not! Especially if you take the context of the chapter and not just the verse.
EXACTLY!!! Why pray through Mary or Saints! If by Jesus’ death and resurrection we have been given the priviledge of calling God, “Father”, why do we need to pray through third parties?
I personally believe that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread and wine together with the bread and wine. Where is it written that it turns solely to flesh and blood?
True. I do agree that there are many “protestant” churches that hold beliefs that go against Scriptural teaching. But does that mean ALL Protestant churches teach dross? I think we Catholics need to learn to get off the Lord’s judgement chair - because judgement is His. And the Bible says in Romans 3:23 that “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. So who made you all so righteous, my Catholic brothers and sisters?
As a reply to this ChristianRoots had written on page 5 of this thread, "The reason why there were no written references to these beliefs in early Church history was because no one was challenging them at that time. Only when there was a challenge to a particular belief did the Church feel compelled to define it in more dogmatic terms." If that’s so, why does the Catholic Church base beliefs such as the Assumption of Mary on treatises like the “De Obitu S. Dominae”? Where did that come from? And please don’t try to fly that “just because it’s not written in the Bible doesn’t mean it didn’t happen” argument. If you believed that you have to agree to the DaVinci theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married (I mean according to that argument, just because it’s not written in the Bible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married doesn’t mean that they weren’t either, does it?)
The idea of Mary being the co-redemptrix sounds like blasphemy to me - sharing the glory due to God (and JESUS IS GOD!) with another person, however “holy”!?! CentralFLJames said “If Mary had not consented to the incarnation Jesus would not have been able to do anything through a channel of freewill without God abusing and brutalizing us to save us against our consent.” See, that’s assuming that we can understang what all God can do! We can’t, which means that we can’t be so sure that God wouldn’t have been able to give us salvation if Mary hadn’t agreed to the plan.
No!Then we agree on purgatory, good.
You are mistaken here. Purgatory and limbo are two different things. Purgatory is doctine and limbo is theological speculation. I beleive Rome recently downplayed the teaching of limbo.
There is probably six or seven views on it at least then.
Thanks for that. Of course purgatory still doesn’t exist.
Your statement makes no sense to me. How is praying the same thing as dying and going to Heaven?
Well, at least you disagree with what the Catholic Church *actually *believes.
Just curious on your take on this passage. Of course this is just one area of Scripture that points to a state or place after death other than Heaven or Hell. In Matthew 12:32 Jesus says, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This implies that sins can be forgiven after death. If you are in Heaven, there is no need to have sins forgiven because you don’t have any in Heaven. If you are in Hell, it’s too late.
Catholics agree wholeheartedly with Ephesians 2:8-9. However, we understand the passage as referring to grace compared with works, not faith with works. I think all Christains are in agreement that nothing can be done under our own power to merit salvation, including having faith and/or doing works, without the grace first supplied by God.
You are straining the words through a very fine mesh here.
I am straining them through Church history.
“Orthodox” means true faith or correct belief. The undivided Church was Orthodox and Catholic.
Sure it does.
Exactly! All bishops were equal and the bishop of Rome had a position of respect and honour. It was always that way.
Yes it was. The Pope has taken the place of the council. All bishops must submit to Rome. The bishop of Rome is the supreme pontiff. It did not look this way in the first millenium.
The semantics for clarification explanation never went over well with the Holy Orthodox Church.
Because the early church and church fathers’ writings had been warped to suit the benefit of the Roman church. It was not the early church, or the Fathers, themselves that Luther took affront to, rather; it was what the Roman church had misused them for. On the contrary - he often referred to them in apologetics, and relied HEAVILY on Augustine.
