Proselytizing

[Seeking12]

Well, then…how do you explain the Scripture verses, offered, which show ‘earthly saints’ being referred to as “Father”? Can you not fathom (because of your prejudice toward the CATHOLIC priesthood) that, as beings created in God’s image, that we reflect His likeness?

We KNOW that calling our dads ‘father’ is a far different thing than calling God “Father”. But we are also meant, as earthly children, to obey our Father (just like we are to obey our heavenly Father). What if we were all to day to our dad’s…I don’t have to listen to you! You’re not my heavenly Father (and he’s the only one that has the authority to tell me what to do!!!).

No. God SHARES his Fatherhood with earthly fathers, in the same way that he shares his Fatherhood with his earthly, spiritual leaders (Fathers, Teachers). He GIVES earthly fathers and teachers a share in his authority (to teach, to be a role model, to admonish and guide). That’s not upsurping God…it’s God’s Will.

“At the Last Supper, Jesus gave His Church the gift of the ministerial priesthood. He gave His apostles the authority to act in His person with the authority given by the Father. Jesus had made this clear in Matthew 10:40 as noted above, and He reemphasized it in John 17 when, while praying to the Father, He said, “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me . . . As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (vv. 12,18). This Sacrament of Holy Orders makes present the graces necessary for our spiritual rebirth and sustenance in Christ. For it is at the hands of priests that we are baptized, confirmed, and receive the precious body and blood of Our Lord. The title “father” does not confer upon priests the same status proper to Our Heavenly Father alone, nor does it diminish God’s absolute and universal fatherhood. However, it is incorrect to interpret Matthew 23:9 in an exclusively literal sense. In 1 Corinthians 4:15, St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” St. Paul calls himself “father” because he recognizes his cooperation with God in begetting the spiritual life of the community entrusted to his care. There are several other passages, such as Acts 7:2; Acts 22:1; Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 2:12; and Philemon 10, which show that the title “father” was applied to others besides God and biological fathers in the New Testament.”

For on this level, interpreting Matthew 23:9 in an exclusively literal sense would undermine the Fourth Commandment. Most will recognize that in no way does this title take away from the ultimate power and authority God has over human life: “Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). Rather, we recognize that all fatherhood comes from God, as St. Paul teaches in Ephesians 3:14-15: “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named. . . .”

"In this context, we can explain the fatherhood of a priest. Rather than bearing the authority of man and providing an example of pride as the scribes and Pharisees, a priest bears the authority of God in the New Covenant sealed in the blood of Christ. With such a commission, the priest is obligated to live in service to others.

Thus, whether we are speaking of biological fathers or spiritual fathers, we understand men in both circumstances to be participating in the one fatherhood of God. This is a gift from God, and must be lived in a godly manner. Only in this way can they raise their children to be children of light. "

I think, at the basis of most Protestant problems is the heresy of Gnosticism…separation of the saints in heaven from the saints on earth…separation of the spiritual and the earthly.

“Salvation is not only from sin, but for sonship – in Christ. We are not only forgiven by God’s grace, we are adopted and divinized, that is, we “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). This is ultimately why God created us, to share in the life-giving love of the Trinity.” – Scott Hahn and Leon Suprenant

**I read all the versus in the NT, 62 in all, where the term Father and father are used. The little “father” is used in the family sense, like dad and also in a broader sense, like the early church “fathers”. The capital ‘F’ Father is used in only reference to divinity of God himself, which proves my point that when it comes to God, we have one “Father” on all spiritual matters and the rest are of earthly existence and characteristics.

Personally, I would never offend God by calling someone “Father” with a capital ‘F’; Holy father is another one; that is just as bad in the eyes of God.

There is never any mention of an earthly priesthood other than the saints in Christ and the divine High Priest, Christ; never a Catholic priesthood.

Do you know one of the difference between the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood is that the Levitical priests, like the Catholic priest kept/keep dying; whereas the order of Melchezidek, lives forever, which Christ is the only one that fits this bill. This is precisely the one of the points made in Hebrews 7 and 8**.

 

[byzgirl]

Look, I’m just trying not to get way off topic. Sorry, sometimes threads can go astray.

You were wondering why people would want to evangelize Italy and I told you the statistics.

32% of Italians go to Church. 27% have read a bible passage in the last year, and only a lowly 14% can answer basic questions about the bible such as are the 4 gospels in the bible. Only 14% answered the correct yes!

So that’s why missionaries are in route. I’m not here to argue against the Catholic faith. I just answered the question you asked and gave you a link you later said you’d not read.

Here is the source link for the article where I got the statistics if you would like to look at it: upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/14/Survey_Italians_ignorant_of_Bible/UPI-63131224026050

So, that’s really all I have to say on the topic. That’s actually all I know on the topic of missions to Italy.

[Well, I’ll be honest…the repeating of the statistics doesn’t solve the dilemma.

Christ desires for there to be one Church. It is the Catholic Church. All christians are called to be fully united within that one Church.

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. I have given them the glory that you gave Me, that they may be one as We are one.” (John 17:20-22)
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:5

CHRISTIANITY & 100 YEARS OF PENTECOSTALISM by Patrick Ife Egbuchunam
http://www.catholicreport.org/?id=213

Ignatius of Antioch
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 – A.D. 110)

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop.” (ibid. 8)
All Christians are to be in unity with the Catholic Church.
Ignatius (108 A.D.) | Irenaeus (180 A.D.) | Tertullian (200 A.D.) | Firmilian (Died 269 A.D.)

All Christians are to have one set of doctrines.
Tertullian (200 A.D.) | Cyril (347 A.D.)

There is only one true Christian Church with an unbroken chain of succession from generation to generation back to the apostles.
Tertullian (200 A.D.)

The Church is to be unified under her leaders.
Ignatius (108 A.D.) | Cyprian (250 A.D.)

The leaders of the Church are to have unity.
Cyprian (250 A.D.)

 

[Seeking12]

No. Anathemas are not condemnations.

And this, (from the CARM web site–which happens to be a Protestant web site…ironically, this web site is also anti-Catholic and doesn’t accept Catholics as Christians and actually do condemn us to hell (as the unsaved). So, if you can’t take our word for it, you can read what they say here:

"**a Catholic anathema is not a pronouncement of damnation (separation from Christ) **but a declaration that an individual is excluded from the fellowship of the Roman Catholic church which includes denial of Communion and the Catholic sacraments.

So, when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is not in right standing with their church, is not to take the sacraments, and might be under discipline. It is an excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person’s actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church."

**I guess that would explain why the Church put so many people to death for denying those things the Church pronounced as anathemas/cursed, which is damned. One that comes to mind is Martin Luther. Actions do speak louder than words, wouldn’t you agree?

“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.” *(This is the use the Catholics used to persecute)*This is the sense of anathema in the following passage from Deuteronomy 7:26: “Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.” Nations, individuals, animals, and inanimate objects may become anathema, i.e. cursed and devoted to destruction.
newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

What is interesting is how they contradict themselves with the following, which is what you alluded to.
“In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense.”

Yet, we know anyone that is separated from God is cursed, so it is a play on words without change in its effect…a softer approach, if you will.

Dictionary: 1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch’s anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne).
3. One that is cursed or damned.
4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned: “Essentialisma belief in natural, immutable sex differencesis anathema to postmodernists, for whom sexuality itself, along with gender, is a ‘social construct’” (Wendy Kaminer).
**

I apologize; I’m way off topic.

 

[DD2007]

[Well, I’ll be honest…the repeating of the statistics doesn’t solve the dilemma.

Christ desires for there to be one Church. It is the Catholic Church. All christians are called to be fully united within that one Church.

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. I have given them the glory that you gave Me, that they may be one as We are one.” (John 17:20-22)
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:5

CHRISTIANITY & 100 YEARS OF PENTECOSTALISM by Patrick Ife Egbuchunam
http://www.catholicreport.org/?id=213

Ignatius of Antioch
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 – A.D. 110)

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop.” (ibid. 8)
All Christians are to be in unity with the Catholic Church.
Ignatius (108 A.D.) | Irenaeus (180 A.D.) | Tertullian (200 A.D.) | Firmilian (Died 269 A.D.)

All Christians are to have one set of doctrines.
Tertullian (200 A.D.) | Cyril (347 A.D.)

There is only one true Christian Church with an unbroken chain of succession from generation to generation back to the apostles.
Tertullian (200 A.D.)

The Church is to be unified under her leaders.
Ignatius (108 A.D.) | Cyprian (250 A.D.)

The leaders of the Church are to have unity.
Cyprian (250 A.D.)

They better get to work in Italy then.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I guess that would explain why the Church put so many people to death for denying those things the Church pronounced as anathemas/cursed, which is damned. One that comes to mind is Martin Luther. Actions do speak louder than words, wouldn’t you agree?

Here we go.

You did know that Luther died from complications of his ill health which he had been fighting almost all his life right?

You can’t blame everything on the Church

God bless

 

[Seeking12]

Here we go.

You did know that Luther died from complications of his ill health which he had been fighting almost all his life right?

You can’t blame everything on the Church

God bless

Like everyone; I do make mistakes; you are correct, but the point does not change. Thank you for the correction.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I was just parusing an Evangelical blog site when I came across a couple that claimed to be “missionaries to Italy”. Italy??? What is THAT all about?

For that matter, I’ve seen a local church send missionaries to another state (I forget which one, now, but remember being shocked).

Is this something new or gaining momentum in recent times?

The Italy thing bothered me…because I can just see these missionaries in Vatican City, trying to ‘evangelize’ priests and seminarians, etc… (the Pope, probably, if they had the chance! Yeesh!

Just cuz a country claims to be Christian does NOT mean all the people within know Christ. It’s no different than sharing Jesus with your neighbour… My goodness we should want to share with any and everyone.

 

[byzgirl]

**“One of the marvels of God’s plan is that He has given fathers a priesthood and priests a fatherhood. Within the family, the father stands before God as a priest and mediator. Within the Church, th priest stands before his parish as a father. A priest’s fatherhood is not merely metaphorical, it is something metaphysical. It is a supernatural participation in God’s fatherhood and in Christ’s high priesthood. How did Christ exercise His high priesthood? He became the New Adam, the father of a new human family in the Church. He thereby became the perfect image of the Father on earth.”

Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the Cross, raised from the dead and yet that resurrected body bears the wounds; ascended into heaven and glorified so that those wounds are not removed but glorified; so that when we behold our King in heaven at the right hand of the Father, what does he look like? A lamb, looking as though he had been slain. Why? Because the Passover Feast continues on into eternity. Christ is priest and victim. He is the Passover Lamb. No wonder Paul can say in 1st Corinthians 5, verse 7: “Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us.” Therefore, what? Therefore, all we have to do is to believe because after all the sacrifice was once for all, it’s over and done with; there’s no continuation? No, he didn’t say that at all.

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 17-34), but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 27-30). For to the high priest (i.e., the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (i.e., the presbyters) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (i.e., the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. …Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate (local church) those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (1 Clement to the Corinthians 44:4).

to be continued…**

 

[byzgirl]

Part 1

The Meal of Melchizedek

But now I’d like to call your attention to our final phase and that is the Book of Hebrews. Turn with me now to the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews, chapter 6 describes how God had made a promise to Abraham and then he changed the promise to an oath. In this morning’s Mass we had a reading from Ezekial where we saw that oath and covenant are practically interchangeable terms. When God swears an oath to Abraham, he makes a covenant. In Genesis 22:18, right after Abraham went to Moriah to sacrifice his firstborn through Sarah, God prevented it and then swore an oath saying, “Surely all the nations of the earth will be blessed through your seed.”

The New Testament begins, “This is Jesus Christ, the seed of the son of Abraham, the Son of David.” Jesus Christ is the one in and through whom God fulfills that oath he swore to Abraham. Where did he swear it? On Moriah, where the temple was later built and where Christ, the New Temple was later destroyed and rebuilt three days afterwards. It talks about this oath and then it goes on to talk about the priesthood of Melchizedek. In chapter 7, the first ten verses, it describes how Abraham met Melchizedek. It talks about the meaning of his name. **He’s the king of righteousness, that’s what Melchizedek means in Hebrew. He is the King of Salem, which means peace, shalom. He is the priest of God Most High and he blessed Abraham, so he was superior to Abraham. Everything is mentioned about the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek except one thing, the bread and the wine. **
Now we are going to ask a question. Is that because the bread and the wine was the only thing that was unimportant about Melchizedek and Abraham meeting, or is it because the importance of the bread and the wine is so great but so obvious that it goes without saying? Let’s study the next few chapters, just briefly look at those and see whether or not you think that the writer understands Melchizedek’s priesthood in relationship to the bread and the wine that he gave Abraham. I think it is. I think it’s significant.

For one thing we already saw back in Hebrews 5, verses 5 and 6 where God has sworn an oath to Jesus Christ. He says, “Thou art my Son. Today have I begotten thee.” And he also says in another place, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” To be God’s Son is like the same thing as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Remember way back in the Old Testament before the Golden Calf, fathers were high priests and firstborn sons were priests under their authority. This seemed to be the natural family pattern of Melchizedek. This is how the ancient Jews as well as the ancient Church Fathers understood it.

 

[byzgirl]

Part 2

Jesus Christ is not a Levite so Old Testament Jews might be tempted to say, "Well, he can’t be a priest, then." But Hebrews is talking all about the wilderness generation under Moses and how they committed idolatry and rebelled against God and how God sent all these punishments. The first rebellion was the Golden Calf, and the first punishment was to take the priesthood away from the firstborn, which had been theirs for centuries, and to give it to the Levites temporarily. What the writer of Hebrews is suggesting is that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is righteous enough to restore the original pattern of the father-son family priesthood, because this is a divine family that God, through Christ, is adopting us into through the sacrifice of Christ.

He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. The word “order” does not mean order like the Dominican Order. It means after the manner of Melchizedek’s priesthood. The writer goes on to make a big, sharp contrast between the Levitical priests who continue to offer these animals in sacrifice. They had to offer. They had to kill. They had to sacrifice millions of sheep, millions of goats and millions of cattle with millions of gallons of blood running down through the temple. Why? It was all after and because of the Golden Calf, whereas before all of that, you had a father and a son and a clean priesthood that Melchizedek represents. “After the manner of Melchizedek” suggests that Melchizedek’s manner of priestly sacrifice was bread and wine. This is how all the early Fathers understood this, as well. **
Now, it says in Hebrews 7 in verse 18, “On the one hand a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect. On the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God.” And it was not without an oath and it talks about how God swore this oath, and the oath that has been talked about is the oath that was sworn by God on Moriah where Christ was slain. Verse 22: This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; whereas Jesus is one. There’s the single priesthood, and he lives forever up in heaven. But he holds his priesthood permanently because he continues a priest forever. Consequently, he is able for all times to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. **

“For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need like those high priests to offer sacrifices daily.” **In other words to kill and to have blood shed continuously. “…first for his own sins and then for those of the people. He did this once for all when he offered up himself. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests.” That is the Levitical law that was given after the Golden Calf, “…but the word of the oath which came later than the law appoints a son who has been made perfect forever.” **

 

[byzgirl]

Part 3

Now there’s a lot here I realize we can’t cover, and it’s very deep; but there’s going to be enough here to really feed our souls if we pay close attention. Now the point in what we are saying is this. We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. Notice that the Lamb is the one enthroned in Revelation. **The Lamb and the firstborn Son of the Passover is the priest who ministers in a sanctuary, the heavenly sanctuary. He is a minister in a sanctuary. It isn’t complete. He is ministering in the heavenly sanctuary and the true tabernacle which is set up not by man but by the Lord. “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Hence it is necessary for this priest to have something to offer.” **
I read that a hundred times before the obvious meaning hit me like a brick in the face. **He is a priest in heaven ministering now in the sanctuary and he’s got something to offer and he’s continually offering it. He’s just not bleeding and dying and suffering any more. He’s not killing any more animals, but he’s continually offering the once and for all sacrifice which is himself; but it’s a continual sacrifice. It’s a perpetual offering. He’s not dying, but he’s still offering. That’s exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass. **
I didn’t understand that. Then I read some basic catechisms and I understood it, but I still didn’t believe it until I studied and restudied and prayerfully re-restudied Hebrews until I saw that Jesus Christ, the firstborn Son, which is the theme in the Book of Hebrews. He’s a much greater priest than the Levites. They replaced the sinful firstborn sons until the true and righteous firstborn Son of God would come.

**Before we had an Old Covenant family on earth. Now we’ve got a New Covenant family in heaven, our divine family. The Trinity’s life is our family life and it comes to us through God’s firstborn Son who was like Melchizedek in being a son-priest. But the bread and the wine that Christ offers is not earthly bread and wine but heavenly bread, heavenly wine in the sense that it’s the body and blood of Christ. He is still to this day and forever a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle is now in heaven which the Lord has set up. And every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices and that is why God appointed his own Son to be High Priest, to offer gifts and sacrifices. And what are they? To offer himself and all of us in union with him. **
The sacrifice isn’t over. Oh, baby, it’s just begun! And we’re going to be doing it forever in and through and with Christ. Not bloody animal sacrifices but our hearts and our souls and our bodies in union with the One whose body and blood, soul and divinity are perfect and pure – the only acceptable sacrifice which makes our otherwise unacceptable sacrifices perfectly acceptable. “Holy and righteous,” Paul says. He goes on talking about the superiority of the New Covenant that Christ established. Now that phrase, “New Covenant,” is kind of an odd phrase. And this really is unfortunate because we’ve heard the phrase New Covenant hundreds and thousands of times. So we are insulated, almost like filters have been planted in our ears so we don’t hear the significance, the spectacular meaning of the phrase New Covenant. Why? Because it’s only said once in the entire Old Testament, Jeremiah 31, which is what the writer of Hebrews in the rest of chapter 8 quotes from, a huge, extended quote from Jeremiah 31. “The days will come says the Lord when I will establish a New Covenant with the House of Israel.” Verse 9, “Not like the covenant I made with your fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. That covenant, they broke.” When? At the Golden Calf. The covenant that he made with them out of Egypt they broke at the Golden Calf.

 

[byzgirl]

Part 4 - The Conclusion (of the article)

This New Covenant will not be like the Golden Calf in the Mosaic covenant which was broken because they were the firstborn sons who were supposed to be serving as priests and were. See for instance in Exodus 24, but in Exodus 32 they all lost it and the Levites got it because the Levites had swords by which they slew three thousand of the idolaters, presumably many firstborn priests were among the victims.

It won’t be like that covenant because this firstborn Son won’t break it, and that’s what makes it new. “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people.” Verse 13, and in speaking of the New Covenant he treats the first as obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Old Testament only uses "New Covenant one time. Jesus in the gospels only uses the phrase “New Covenant” one time. When? At Passover time. Where? In the Upper Room. Why? To institute the Eucharist.

Now, do you see a connection? In other words, the writer of Hebrews has focused upon the key phrase, “New Covenant.” He’s made a mountain out of a molehill, if you’re judging by numerical usage: one time in the Old Testament. Not how many, it’s how significant it is. Jesus only used the phrase, “New Covenant” one time, when he transformed the Old Testament covenant of Moses, the Passover Covenant by offering himself as the unblemished Lamb and the firstborn Son and the Priest and the King and the Victim and all of it wrapped up in one. That is the New Covenant.

And so he goes on in Hebrews 9 to talk about the superiority. Back in the Old Testament, verse 9, we read, "According to this Old Testament arrangement, gifts and sacrifices were offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper. What is the contrast implied? Back then sacrifices were offered which couldn’t perfect the worshipper’s conscience, implying that in the New Covenant, what? Sacrifices are offered which do perfect the conscience of the worshipper.

That’s what the Eucharist does. It cleanses our soul. It wipes away all venial sin. These Old Testament sacrifices, verse 10, deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, baptismois, in the Greek, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. Do you know when the real Reformation came? Not in 1517. The real reformation came in the Upper Room when the Eucharist was instituted, when the Catholic Church was formed. The time of reformation wiped away the weak ineffective Old Testament sacrifices. To do away with all sacrifices altogether? No. To initiate a new sacrifice which has intrinsic power to cleanse our consciences.

 

[byzgirl]

Just cuz a country claims to be Christian does NOT mean all the people within know Christ. It’s no different than sharing Jesus with your neighbour… My goodness we should want to share with any and everyone.

No. I’m not suggesting that Christians aren’t called to evangelize each other…but, as no one can deny…Christ called for unity in one faith and one baptism.

Protestants make up the second largest group of Christians and number about 470million. However, it must be noted that this group is quite diverse and includes the Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and Lutherans among others. For the purposes of this classification they refer to those denominations that came into being within one hundred years of the Reformation. These denominations will frequently have existed for about four to five centuries. They differ in doctrine and practice but are united in rejecting any allegiance to the Pope.

However, there are many denominations that feel offended when they are described as Protestant. They would rather not be affiliated to Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. This group will be referred to as ‘Other Christians’. They would include the Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Jehovah Witnesses, Anabaptists, Latter Day Saints, African Indigenous Sects like the Aladura and Celestial Church as well as other sects too numerous to be mentioned. They number about 280 million. They are typically younger sects and most of them would have been founded in the last 10 – 200 years. This is a disparate group that differ widely in doctrine. They also reject any allegiance to the Pope.

The fourth and last major group of Christians is the Orthodox/Eastern Christians who number about 250million. It can be broadly described as the second oldest Church in Christian history. The break (schism, as opposed to heresy) was finalized in the eleventh century, about 1054AD.

This classification of Christianity is convenient but inadequate to evaluate the different dimensions of the religion. Christianity is the most fragmented and divided religion on earth today. It now boasts 34,000 different denominations and new sects come on board daily. All it takes is to register with the regulatory or government bodies and a new church comes into being.

It’s hard, for Protestants, then…to decide who should evangelize (and who shouldn’t). After all, even with some of these Protestant groups being considered “Bible-Believing” (sola scriptura adherents)…it’s still difficult to get unanimous unity on essentials…therefore, incapable of possessing “one faith and one baptism”. All of these groups are imperfectly joined to the Body of Christ, which is most fully found within the Catholic Church.

So, unless differing Protestant groups want to evangelize a very truncated version of Christianity (and avoid proselytizing)…it won’t cause further splintering and in-fighting. However, a certain faction of Protestantism (mainly Evangelicals) have no qualms in relating the ‘errors’ of another christian community’s beliefs. Therefore, it does NOTHING to promote God’s desire for unity…but creates more DISunity.

 

[guanophore]

In some ways I don’t see the issue because if anyone is outside of the Catholic church they are anathema.

This is a falsehood, Seeking. It would be in your best interest to refrain from spreading it.

**Are you suggesting the anathemas are not condemnations by the Council of Trent, which Vatican II confirms? **

No, we are not suggesting that. We are saying that they are directed toward certain persons who espouse certain heresies, not “everyone outside the Catholic Church” as you have represented.