Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[lanman87]

This is why, when it says “choose from among yourselves” it is talking about “from among the elders”. The elders and deacons were responsible for managing the public liturgy. I am curious what part of it you think Catholics do not follow today.

I don’t understand. It was written to elders and deacons to choose elders and deacons from among themselves to be elders and deacons? Most scholars I’ve read say that elders, presbyters, bishops and overseers are all the same office under different names.

 

[MT1926]

I’m just going by the fact that if our local small Baptist churches are able to build baptistries then surely the Catholic Church can.

That fact that one can afford to build a submersion tank doesn’t really prove immersion is the only way one can be baptized. I just wanted to point out that there are Catholic Churches with full immersion Baptismal fonts. As well as some that have living water fonts, that the person stands in and the Priest puts there head under the living water fall when performing the Baptism.

…New Testament until the end of the 4th Century.

The non-Catholic asks for evidence, the Catholic points to the historical writings and the non Catholic says well those writings aren’t infallible. The non-Catholic makes the claim that the writings were passed around from the beginning and the early Christians knew which books were inspired. The Catholic asks for evidence and the non-Catholic gives no historical evidence and points to the Bible. It gets us nowhere.

Imagine for a second you were an outsider looking in on this argument. Pretend you are neutral. Which argument, if any would you be willing to accept?

To me it comes down to interpretation. It’s the most logical argument, even though many are illogical in their thinking. Let’s face it we can all agree that the Bible can be interpreted to say whatever we want it to say. The fact that we are here arguing Bible verses is evidence enough. If someone isn’t willing to agree that the Bible can be interpreted to fit their theology then they are so rooted in disbelief that they aren’t even worth your time.

That’s why I like to talk about the interpretation aspect of the Bible. Many modern Bibles comes with footnotes. Why is that? I mean if footnotes help us interpret the Apostles meaning, why didn’t the Apostles write the footnotes when they penned the books? It all comes down to interpretation.

Even the Catholic Church doesn’t interpret every verse of the Bible. That’s where the Oral tradition comes in. The Oral traditions teaches us the meaning as a whole, not verse by verse. It is so freeing to be a Catholic because we have the authority to draw personal meaning out of every verse of the Bible. The Bible speaks to us personally and we can use it to guide our lives with the changing times. The Church’s teachings are there as our guide to keep us on the path so we don’t start interpreting something in a way that contradicts the Dogmas of our faith.

Personally, I love Typology, when I can see the Topological references between the OT and NT it shows me how great our God is. How it truly was all part of His great big plan from the beginning of time. Dr. Scott Hahn is amazing when it come to Typology.

If you would like to have a conversation on Interpreting the Bible and why Jesus didn’t feel it was necessary for us to know it’s true meaning I would love to dialogue on this. For me I just have a hard time believing an all loving God would leave us with a Book and not the Answer key.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I don’t understand. It was written to elders and deacons to choose elders and deacons from among themselves to be elders and deacons?

In the early days, Deacons were chosen by Bishops to be their assistants. Currently, Deacons are more often chosen or put forward by the community, then enter a discernment process under the supervision of the Bishop. This includes theological education and spiritual formation.

Elders (presbyters), unlike the early Deacons, were an extension of the Bishopric in the sense of being able to provide sacraments to the faithful. Where the Deacon would remain with the Bishop, the presbyter (priest) remained in the community to serve the Church.

Overseers (bishops/episkipos) extended the authority given to them by the Apostles to cathect the sacraments. A priest may be a shepherd or “overseer” of his community, but is always under a Bishop.

 

[MT1926]

Please share the definitive proof that infants were baptized in the 1st Century. All I can find is circumstantial evidence at best. Covenant theological arguments aside, I’ve been looking for some definitive historical proof that infants were baptized “since the beginning”.

Sure I would be happy to. Could you please tell me which non-Biblical evidence you are willing to accept as historical proof?

All I’ve found are the arguments that households were baptized which may or may not have included children to young to believe.

Ok let’s look at this logically.
Jesus said:
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
You say: All doesn’t mean children

Peter said:
Acts 2:38-39
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
You say: Only the Children who have come to the age of reason. (Whatever that might be, since it is nowhere to be found in the Bible)

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
You say: There weren’t any children in her household.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.
You claim: No kids in this family either

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
You claim: All doesn’t mean all it only means adults

1 Corinthians 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

You claim: Yeah that Steph’anas didn’t have any kids either.

I see the point you are making. But don’t you think it’s a difficult position to hold when you need to make your claim this many times in the Bible?

What’s more probable that all six of these verse aren’t talking about young children or that at least one of these verses might be talking about infants.

I’m not saying this is the explicit evidence you are asking for. All I am pointing out is you don’t have explicit evidence to prove that the “children” mentioned in the verse weren’t young infants.

 

[MT1926]

The first writing I can find that specifically instruct infant baptism were written around 200, a full 170 years after Pentecost.

Could you explain why this is a problem? Look back at history, writings withing the first 2 centuries of an event are considered gold.

Let’s take the philosopher Plato for example. He live around 400 BC. However, all of his manuscripts come from sources written from the 9th to 13th century AD. So would we say Plato’s philosophical arguments are bogus?

Also, historically it seems that infant baptism didn’t become the norm until the late 4th maybe early 5th Centuries.

Once again you are looking at the writings against a heresy that popped up and thinking this is when it started.

Council of Mileum II

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

Just because something is written at a latter date doesn’t prove it was never taught. Quite a bit of what was written in the Epistles address a correction that needed to be made when someone was teaching incorrectly.

Do you honestly believe the every incorrect teaching that would ever occur, occurred within the lifetime of the Apostles?

So if you have definitive proof that infant baptism was practiced since the beginning then please share it. I might become a Presbyterian.

I find it interesting that you continue to expect definitive/explicit/Biblical only proof for the Catholic faith yet expect none for your own?

God Bless

 

[71coog]

I think that many Catholics struggle with the term “infallability”. It is probably the main reason that so many Catholics leave the Church for other belief systems.

 

[lanman87]

I find it interesting that you continue to expect definitive/explicit/Biblical only proof for the Catholic faith yet expect none for your own?

All you see is the questions that I’m asking all of you nice Catholic folks on this site. You don’t see the questions I’m asking my reformed friends. The difference is I don’t have any Catholic friends because in my small southern town there is only one Catholic church and I actually only personally know one Catholic family and they are just acquaintances. I do personally know a couple of reformed pastors and I’ve been grilling them with questions as well.

I was raised Southern Baptist which is neither truly Calvinist or Arminian and certainly not Catholic. I’ve being reading church History books that were written by both Protestants and Catholics and have been studying the various theologies and the reasoning/text behind the theologies.

I’m not trying to prove Southern Baptist Theology or Reformed Theology or Arminian Theology or Pentecostal Theology. I’m simply having a dialogue with you good folks in order to understand. Sometimes I take what I know is the opposite view in order to generate dialogue and sharpen the distinctions. I do the same thing with my Calvinist friends and Methodist friends and Assembly of God friends.

 

[MT1926]

All you see is the questions that I’m asking all of you nice Catholic folks on this site. You don’t see the questions I’m asking my reformed friends.

This is true to an extent. I also see the questions you do answer and even though I realize it might be just oversight on your end, I also see the questions that go unanswered.

The difference is I don’t have any Catholic friends

Yep big difference because I have no friends.

I personally come here to speak with charitable non-Catholics like yourself. I like to hear others insights on there faith. Sure I might not always agree but the part I like most is being questioned, it really makes me dig deep and understand why I believe in the Catholic Church.

I know some Evangelicals in my area, but it is impossible to speak with them. Seems like all they really want is to hear themselves preach. A back and forth dialogue or God forbid asking them to explain what they mean is not the response of a TRUE Christian in their book.

I’ve being reading church History books that were written by both Protestants and Catholics and have been studying the various theologies and the reasoning/text behind the theologies.

This is good to hear. The think that makes me scratch my head though, and I mean this charitable, is do you find anything beneficial in them? I know that sounds harsh but this comes back to me also seeing your responses. It sure seems like you quickly dismiss any of the historical evidence we provide as being non-biblical. If we site a Church Father the response is always well they were 100 years removed, therefore we can’t really trust them.

I’m not trying to prove Southern Baptist Theology or Reformed Theology or Arminian Theology or Pentecostal Theology. I’m simply having a dialogue with you good folks in order to understand.

That’s good. I too am not here to convert you to Catholicism I just want to know why people believe what they believe. Which is where my question came from. You might not agree but I truly believe people can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. That’s why someones interpretation of a particular verse doesn’t mean a whole lot unless they have more reasoning to back up what they say. For someone to say “This is what the Apostolic Circle” meant here without any proof, other than their own word, sets off my BS meter every time.

Sometimes I take what I know is the opposite view in order to generate dialogue and sharpen the distinctions. I do the same thing with my Calvinist friends and Methodist friends and Assembly of God friends.

Great, keep them coming. There is no question that I am unwilling to tackle. I love digging deep.

Sometimes we might get a little heated in here, but I think we are keeping it civil.

I’m enjoying the dialogue,

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

It sure seems like you quickly dismiss any of the historical evidence we provide as being non-biblical. If we site a Church Father the response is always well they were 100 years removed, therefore we can’t really trust them.

Like I said, You just see the questions an answer I give on this site. I’ll give you an example of a dialogue with a 5 point Calvinist friend of mine. We were talking about how we know the fundamentals of the faith (that which must be believed) and the things people disagree about in which we are to be graceful to each other and agree to disagree. I asked him how we know the difference. He said because of the testimony and consensus of the church from the beginning. To which I replied “Oh, sacred tradition”.

The think that makes me scratch my head though, and I mean this charitable, is do you find anything beneficial in them?

I find it beneficial to see how the church came to be the modern church. What struggles and questions that were raised and how they were answered.

Living in the South, I know a lot of people from different denominations and have taken part of services of several different denominations. Mostly Southern Baptist but also United Methodist (my wife was Methodist), Presbyterian/Reformed (many friends of this stripe), Church of Christ (you can’t throw a stick in this town without hitting a Church of Christ building), and Assembly of God (Brother in law attends a large AOG in the area).

What I’ve discovered is that folks in each place love Jesus and their faith is made evident by how the live their lives. They sponsor kids through Compassion International, support or go on mission trips, give and volunteer at the local food banks, support the local Crisis pregnancy center, volunteer in their prospective churches and share their faith with others.

Who am I to say that someone is going to Hell because they don’t believe in baptismal regeneration or do or don’t believe in OSAS or go to a rock and roll church or worship with a piano or accapella only. The heart of Christianity is not about tradition or theology. It is about trusting in Christ so much that you live for Him. That trust can be lived out in many traditions and under different understandings. We are human, we have a limited ability to understand the things of God. If we don’t understand then we have an uncanny ability to fill in the blanks.

So I find it interesting, as you do, to see why people live out their faith in the way they do. Mostly it is because that is what we were taught being a Christian “looks like”. It is because it is familiar and comfortable. But if the heart behind it is “I love and trust in Jesus and want to live for Him” then I have no objection to any of it.

 

[MT1926]

It is about trusting in Christ so much that you live for Him. That trust can be lived out in many traditions and under different understandings.

I guess this would depend on how we define the word trust. To me the word trust is one of those all or none type of words. So either you trust everything Jesus said or you don’t really trust Him.

Sure we can live out our traditions to what suits US best and it might look good and feel good to us, but that is not evidence that we are trusting Jesus. If we are the ones defining the rules of what Jesus wants then we are going to define them to what we think is most important not what Jesus thinks.

Think about it Jesus put forth some very hard teachings in the Bible and He let them walk away. His Apostles didn’t have a choice to follow Him on this but not on that. Jesus demanded an all or none trust on His terms not theirs. The only think that has changed since then is our understanding. Each tradition claiming this is what trust in Jesus means.

I think the big question to ask is are we living for Jesus on His terms or ours? If it is His terms then we need to ask ourselves what are Jesus terms? What does Jesus want?

As a father to my children I know I would never put my terms in writing and leave them on the kitchen counter. That is a guaranteed argument of who does what and how they want to do it. I can just see one saying I wouldn’t do it that way dad taught us to do it this way. Yeah but my way is quicker. Back and forth bickering.

If I know this of my own children, whom still do it as young adults, there is no way Jesus would have for seen this. The only way selfish humans can learn truth is by having it taught to them.

We are human, we have a limited ability to understand the things of God. If we don’t understand then we have an uncanny ability to fill in the blanks.

Totally agree. That’s why I believe Jesus would never leave us with a book to figure out, using our own understanding. It’s easy to see that the Bible has a lot of blanks that need to be filled in.

I love my children way to much to leave them with a note of what they need to get done. I sit down with them and show them what to do and watch them while they perform the task a few times. That’s why I believe Jesus truly did what He said and left us a guiding light in His Church with generations of faithful men to guide us. He loves us to much to leave us on our own wondering if we filled in the blanks correctly. Or even worse yet convincing ourselves that we know what the Apostles truly meant when they wrote their letters.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I think that many Catholics struggle with the term “infallability”. It is probably the main reason that so many Catholics leave the Church for other belief systems.

It certainly was a factor in my lapse. I realized many years after the fact that every “reason” I had for departing was actually a misunderstanding of what the Church believed and taught. I just never learned by faith.

All you see is the questions that I’m asking all of you nice Catholic folks on this site.

Ideally this should be the premier place for a person such as yourself to ask such questions!

 

[po18guy]

Possession of a bible certainly makes one an absolute authority. Nothing like setting out to correct 1.5 billion Catholics and Orthodox, not to mention millions of Anglicans. Episcopalians, Reformed, Nazarenes etc. etc. etc. on infant baptism.

I really wish that the omniscient bible Christians would get their own brothers and sisters all on the same page first.

 

[hope]

So if you have definitive proof that infant baptism was practiced since the beginning then please share it. I might become a Presbyterian.

A question when do you say that the children of Christians were baptized. Are you saying that Christian families did nothing for their children until they were older and if that is what you are saying proof would be nice.
That fact that children were being baptized in the third century demonstrates that families were baptizing. What evidence do you have that this didn’t start in the first century?
Peter compared baptism to circumcision declaring that it replaced it. God commanded the all the male Israelite’s as, a sign of the covenant to, to be circumcised. All the adult were required and any one who converted but they didn’t say it would be only for adults, no, the children were circumcised. Peter equates baptism with circumcision and like circumcision it is meant for the baby.

 

[po18guy]

OP: infants were routinely and universally baptized until 1609 when Englishman John Smythe invented the idea of the “believer’s baptism” based on his faulty understanding of scripture alone.

You trust man, or do you trust God?

Read Acts 2 and Acts 10. “The promise is for you and your children.” Cornelius and his entire household were baptized. Couple of things:

1. Where does scripture ban infant baptism" Hint: It does not.
2. What happens to the souls of children who die without baptism? Hmmm…

This is not rocket science.

 

[lanman87]

I guess this would depend on how we define the word trust. To me the word trust is one of those all or none type of words. So either you trust everything Jesus said or you don’t really trust Him.

In Clements letter to the Corinthians he writes in chapter 31

All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Most try to use that passage to show the early church taught “Faith alone” however I want to point out he says we aren’t justified by our wisdom or understanding. It isn’t our doctrine that saves us. It isn’t understanding the eucharist or baptism or grace or sacraments or works. It is our resting our souls and trusting our eternity in the hands of God through faith in Jesus Christ. We can get a lot of things “wrong” and still be justified.

 

[MT1926]

It isn’t our doctrine that saves us.

I would agree with you and Clement that we don’t need to have an understanding of the eucharist or baptism or grace or the trinity or works, etc to be saved. All we have to know and trust is that Jesus gave us the sacraments for a reason. This is the all or none trust that I am referring to. Either you trust Jesus when He says…

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Or you don’t trust that Jesus is capable of giving us His flesh to eat.

Jesus even pointed at the Apostles and asked so you gonna trust me or not.

67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?”

St. Peter responded Lord I don’t have a clue in the world what the heck you are talking about. All I know is I trust you and when the time is right you will open my eyes.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

This is what Clement is talking about here. We don’t need to understand we just need to trust that Jesus provide for us a way in which we will be guided to the truth. Jesus left us His Church (not the Bible) for this very reason.

Go back to Chapter 1 Clement says…

The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;

This isn’t just some letter Clement decided to write to Corinth. This is an authoritative response from Rome addressing the problems the local Church of Corinth could not settle on their own.

This is the context in which Clement writes. He is telling Corinth that you don’t need to understand it and argue interpretations among the members, you just need to trust us when we say this is how Jesus wants it understood.

however I want to point out he says we aren’t justified by our wisdom or understanding. It isn’t our doctrine that saves us

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here but if my justification isn’t based on my wisdom or understanding of the Bible, then to me this throws Sola Scriptura under the bus and tells me to stick to being taught the Oral Tradition (of the interpretations) of the Bible handed down by the faithful men to the present age.

Maybe you are trying to make some other point from Clement, but when I read his letter in context that is how I interpret it.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

would agree with you and Clement that we don’t need to have an understanding of the eucharist or baptism or grace or the trinity or works, etc to be saved. All we have to know and trust is that Jesus gave us the sacraments for a reason. This is the all or none trust that I am referring to. Either you trust Jesus when He says…

Or you don’t trust that Jesus is capable of giving us His flesh to eat.

So you said you agree that we don’t need to understand (which is Theology) and then you say you must agree with Catholic Theology???

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean here but if my justification isn’t based on my wisdom or understanding of the Bible, then to me this throws Sola Scriptura under the bus and tells me to stick to being taught the Oral Tradition (of the interpretations) of the Bible handed down by the faithful men to the present age.

What I’m saying is that there a lot of groups that say, “In order to be a Christian you must not only trust in Christ and live for Him, you must have the same understanding we do about (Fill in the blank)”. The blank could be baptism or The Lord’s Supper or type of music (or music at all), or type of church government, or tithing, or any number of things.

We ignore the first and greatest commandment and the second commandment, which the law and prophets depend and instead focus on our understandings that we impose on others.

 

[MT1926]

So you said you agree that we don’t need to understand (which is Theology) and then you say you must agree with Catholic Theology???

I apologize if what I said was confusing. I am saying we don’t need to personally understand the why’s of how the Sacraments work. That would be unheard of for Jesus to say “hey either you understand what I want you to do and how to do it or you’re not saved.”

The point I am trying to make, which is what Clement is saying, is Christ left us a Church to guide us (Chapter 1), like children, so we wouldn’t have to worry about knowing how it works. All we have to do is trust that Jesus said it and the Church, He left in charge, affirms what He said.

I get the point you are trying to make, that I am saying we must agree with Catholic theology. Not necessarily. The point I am making is just because we don’t need to have a complete understand of Theology doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus intended ONE correct theology.

All I am saying is Jesus did give us ONE truth, I am sure He would want the human race to know what that ONE complete truth is, He just doesn’t require every member to personally know every detail. See Luke 12:48… for whom much is given much more will be demanded.

I believe Jesus gave that ONE complete truth to His Church. In light of Luke 12:48 giving that much Truth to the Apostles I am sure Jesus would demand that they pass on that ONE complete truth to future generations and not just have it go away with the death of the last Apostle. I also believe that the Catholic Church was the ONE given that truth. If you disagree that is fine, but please point me to who then holds the ONE complete truth and why you believe that? But to say Jesus never intended for us to understand the complete truth just doesn’t make sense to me.

I believe Jesus expects from each of us what we are capable of. Well I am sure you would agree that some men are capable of understanding a lot more theology than you or I. What good would that be if they would be no closer to knowing if they truly acquired that truth or not?

“In order to be a Christian you must not only trust in Christ and live for Him, you must have the same understanding we do about (Fill in the blank)”. The blank could be baptism or The Lord’s Supper or type of music (or music at all), or type of church government, or tithing, or any number of things.

Yeah, believe it or not the Catholic Church does not place these demands on it’s members. The only think they require is that we not outright reject and go against what is taught. I believe we need to understand the logical point that Christ had to of left someone in charge to guide us. We don’t need to write a doctoral dissertation on Transubstantiation in order to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. All we need to understand is Jesus said this is my Body. With God all things are possible. If He said it I’m sure He could do it. I’m willing to accept it and wait until I get to heaven to find out how He does it.

 

[MT1926]

We ignore the first and greatest commandment and the second commandment, which the law and prophets depend and instead focus on our understandings that we impose on others.

Why does it have to be either or? Why can’t we Trust in Christ and Trust in the Sacraments He left us? I’m not seeing how one can truly participate (sure I agree there are some that just show up) in a Mass (totally filled with Biblical theology), Tithing to said Church so they can use that money to efficiently and effectively feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc…, and participating in the Eucharist (which we truly believe to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior), and come away not Loving God and Loving Neighbor?

The either or scenario you are alluding to doesn’t make sense to me.

Your thoughts?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Why does it have to be either or? Why can’t we Trust in Christ and Trust in the Sacraments He left us? I’m not seeing how one can truly participate (sure I agree there are some that just show up) in a Mass (totally filled with Biblical theology), Tithing to said Church so they can use that money to efficiently and effectively feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc…, and participating in the Eucharist (which we truly believe to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior), and come away not Loving God and Loving Neighbor?

The either or scenario you are alluding to doesn’t make sense to me.

I’m not saying Catholics don’t do both. What I’m saying is that Evangelicals teach having faith in Christ and Loving God and Loving Others. We do not have the same understanding of sacraments that Catholics do. However, we do have many things that help us grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Things that encourage us to be righteous and faithful and live our lives as lives of faith. Joyful worship, Bible Study, Sunday School and preaching, mission trips and supporting ministries and so forth. Plus we do have baptism and the Lord’s Support and Marriage and Confession and Repentance. We pray for the sick and dying and have even been know to anoint someone with oil and pray over them. While all of that may look different and not be understood the same ways as Catholics do we do what we do in Faith and Love.

Often on this board I see something along the lines of “Those poor Protestants they struggle because they don’t have the sacraments” all the way to “Those evil protestants can’t be saved because they don’t hold to every belief in the CCC”.

In fact, we poor Protestant have the ability to live joyful life, powered by the Holy Spirit, and with great Faith and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ, looking to bring Him Glory and Honor with our lives.