Protestant versus Catholic

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The distinction of the Gutenberg Bible was that it was the first in movable type. It was not a translation in the vernacular, it was in fact the Latin Vulgate. What is the point (from your quote above in bold) that you are trying to make?

Bibles in the vernacular, (English, German and so forth) that were not translated and printed by the RCC were burned. For half a century or more, this was every single Bible printed for sale to the masses. This is simple historical fact. The D/R was the first Catholic English translation, the vulgate was the basis for this. It appeared in the late 16th century, 50 or 60 years after Tyndale et el. A good arguement can be made to support the contention that the [SIGN]D/R was the direct result of the pressure of the reformers on the RCC to put the scriptures into the hands of the pew sitters.

[/SIGN]

But what is your Point here? I know what your point is, which is why I stated what I did, But in all fairness I will let you make your point then I will continue with mine.

 

[gcnuss]

I think it takes guts to admit that you could not be totally sold out to Catholic doctrine and that if you did you would be a “cafeteria Catholic.”
I also agree with you that there are things that we all can agree on. When we find that common ground the other things will not look quite as insurmountable. If we do this it will no longer be an us versus them debate but what makes us right. I would love to see all come home to the Catholic church, but many who do sometimes hold to past churches. at least you have the guts to say “I could not because…” That is something I can respect.

Fr. John,

I am in somewhat the same position as Rev. Joe even though I have said that if I could not remain a Lutheran my only logical destination would have to be Catholicism. There is so much that we share, more than we Lutherans share with a large part of the Protestant world. And yet, I would have a lot of difficulty accepting that the Lord’s Body and Blood – given and shed for all (or many) – should be shared only with those who are in complete doctrinal agreement, I would have difficulty accepting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as I know many women clergy who do wonderful ministry, and I haven’t yet come to believe that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of the fullness of truth. Still, I admire the Church for its witness to Christ in the world.

For the time being I, too, would be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Should a time come when I felt forced to seriously consider Catholicism, it would require considerable prayer, discernment, and trust in the Holy Spirit to lead me to where I should be.

 

[JonNC]

Fr. John,

I am in somewhat the same position as Rev. Joe even though I have said that if I could not remain a Lutheran my only logical destination would have to be Catholicism. There is so much that we share, more than we Lutherans share with a large part of the Protestant world. And yet, I would have a lot of difficulty accepting that the Lord’s Body and Blood – given and shed for all (or many) – should be shared only with those who are in complete doctrinal agreement, I would have difficulty accepting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as I know many women clergy who do wonderful ministry, and I haven’t yet come to believe that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of the fullness of truth. Still, I admire the Church for its witness to Christ in the world.

For the time being I, too, would be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Should a time come when I felt forced to seriously consider Catholicism, it would require considerable prayer, discernment, and trust in the Holy Spirit to lead me to where I should be.

Hi Pastor,
Along this, I agree with you in many ways. Other than perhaps Traditional Anglican, there is no other Protestant communion I could join, so my destination would have to be Catholic.
My question as a Lutheran: how do you think you would handle Purgatory? I often quote here Father Tavard’s remark here:

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

If in fact it can be described as a moment of cleansing at the time of death, how far is that from Lutheran understanding?

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Fr. John,

I am in somewhat the same position as Rev. Joe even though I have said that if I could not remain a Lutheran my only logical destination would have to be Catholicism. There is so much that we share, more than we Lutherans share with a large part of the Protestant world. And yet, I would have a lot of difficulty accepting that the Lord’s Body and Blood – given and shed for all (or many) – should be shared only with those who are in complete doctrinal agreement, I would have difficulty accepting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as I know many women clergy who do wonderful ministry, and I haven’t yet come to believe that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of the fullness of truth. Still, I admire the Church for its witness to Christ in the world.

For the time being I, too, would be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Should a time come when I felt forced to seriously consider Catholicism, it would require considerable prayer, discernment, and trust in the Holy Spirit to lead me to where I should be.

Today is my day off and I am on my way out. But I must make one comment. I can’t wait for that day to come. I have so much respect for you both and can’t wait for that day. And WHEN it does come. Not if, sorry I get a little too excited at times, Let me be the first one in line to say:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;

WELCOME TO THE FAMILY:extrahappy::dancing::hug1:

 

[Protestant101]

Well, in which universe would you prefer to live - the one that is technically correct, or the one filled with fallacy and revisionist history? Given a choice, I’ll take the former.

To deny the facts, is to let prejudice override reason.

Peace!

Well; most Churches, including your’s has their own brands of “revisionist history.” When Catholic “history” is compared with other views; it does not always coincide or match. I don’t think that “technically correct” is the correct phrase for you to be using.

 

[FrJohnB]

Fr. John,

I am in somewhat the same position as Rev. Joe even though I have said that if I could not remain a Lutheran my only logical destination would have to be Catholicism. There is so much that we share, more than we Lutherans share with a large part of the Protestant world. And yet, I would have a lot of difficulty accepting that the Lord’s Body and Blood – given and shed for all (or many) – should be shared only with those who are in complete doctrinal agreement, I would have difficulty accepting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as I know many women clergy who do wonderful ministry, and I haven’t yet come to believe that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of the fullness of truth. Still, I admire the Church for its witness to Christ in the world.

For the time being I, too, would be a “cafeteria Catholic.” Should a time come when I felt forced to seriously consider Catholicism, it would require considerable prayer, discernment, and trust in the Holy Spirit to lead me to where I should be.

I think that it is wonderful that you at least can express this feeling as well. As to women in the clergy, It is as you say not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. I have met in my 25 years as a priest wonderful Protestant pastors who are much beloved by their congregations. I have never had the “pleasure” of actually hearing one preach, but only to know that they are well thought of.
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion and not Catholic teaching, but I would think that the Roman Catholic church would have married priests BEFORE they would females. I know that they already accept married priests from say the Anglican church so I do not think there would be a far stretch to have them. THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION, not that of the Magisterium so please no flack from the Catholic side. From what I am seeing of SOME of the higher ups in the US bishops, there are many liberals and it may change, but not with this current Pontiff or in my lifetime.

 

[Padrej]

I think that it is wonderful that you at least can express this feeling as well. As to women in the clergy, It is as you say not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. I have met in my 25 years as a priest wonderful Protestant pastors who are much beloved by their congregations. I have never had the “pleasure” of actually hearing one preach, but only to know that they are well thought of.
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion and not Catholic teaching, but I would think that the Roman Catholic church would have married priests BEFORE they would females. I know that they already accept married priests from say the Anglican church so I do not think there would be a far stretch to have them. THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION, not that of the Magisterium so please no flack from the Catholic side. From what I am seeing of SOME of the higher ups in the US bishops, there are many liberals and it may change, but not with this current Pontiff or in my lifetime.

I too had hoped that John Paul II successor would have allowed married clergy in the Catholic church. I know that many of my Catholic relatives would support it. But I also see your position that you must follow the Magisteruim. One of the hold backs for my total conversion is that my wife is also ordained. For me to swim the Tiber she would not go to the Catholic church and I do not like the idea of being unevenly yoked. She has said she would not stop me if this is what the Lord is calling me to do. I still need much prayer in this area.

 

[MariaG]

I too had hoped that John Paul II successor would have allowed married clergy in the Catholic church. I know that many of my Catholic relatives would support it. But I also see your position that you must follow the Magisteruim. One of the hold backs for my total conversion is that my wife is also ordained. For me to swim the Tiber she would not go to the Catholic church and I do not like the idea of being unevenly yoked. She has said she would not stop me if this is what the Lord is calling me to do. I still need much prayer in this area.

 

[Protestant101]

Jan Hus, a RCC priest in the 15th century and of whom I take my screen name from was burned at the stake for his position against some of the teachings of RCC. I hope I never have to take a stand such as he did but if I ever have to make a choice between agreeing with some of what Rome says vs. what the clear teaching of the Bible, I will take the stake. This poster is not “just separated” as you claim.

PS your logic is not logical by the way.

You should be careful about making such vows; for you never know when you might just have to make such a choice. We are not usually half as brave as we say/think we are. Did you know that the Bible says even martyrdom is NOT acceptable sometimes?
**

1Co 13:3

I may give away everything I have, and even give up my body to be burned —but if I have no love, this does me no good. (GNB)**
You remind me of Peter, who before he was converted, so staunchly denied he would ever deny his Lord, and then the first time he got too close to the fire of persecution he did just that.

Maybe, we all should look at ways we NOW deny our Lord?

 

[rinnie]

You should be careful about making such vows; for you never know when you might just have to make such a choice. We are not usually half as brave as we say/think we are. Did you know that the Bible says even martyrdom is NOT acceptable sometimes?

---

You remind me of Peter, who before he was converted, so staunchly denied he would ever deny his Lord, and then the first time he got too close to the fire of persecution he did just that.

Maybe, we all should look at ways we NOW deny our Lord?

True, Peter did deny Christ not once but 3 times. Makes us wonder what our lesson was here, not just Peter’s, do you not agree?

But you are right how many of us do the right thing? But here is a point to ponder also. Peter did indeed deny Christ 3 times as I stated. But Why? Because Peter was being human and was scared. Would we not all be?

But what did Peter do after he denied Christ? He cried did he not? He repented and he was sorry. I have heard it is told through ST that Peter cried so hard that he actually had welts on his face for what he did.

But see God knew Peter. God picked Peter. God even warned him he was going to betray him. But God knew Peters heart didn’t he.

And when Jesus came back what did he say to Peter 3 times. Get it 3 times. He told Peter 3 times to lead the Church and Peter knew why. He denied Christ 3 times but was forgiven wasn’t he. See God did not have to use the WORDS Peter I forgive you. But he did get his point across.

Jesus prayed for Peter. And Peter still was weak at times. Because like us he is human. But Peter did what was asked of him. And he did real good!!

P.S. Peter was converted the first moment he saw Jesus and left his boat and followed Christ!

 

[gcnuss]

Hi Pastor,
Along this, I agree with you in many ways. Other than perhaps Traditional Anglican, there is no other Protestant communion I could join, so my destination would have to be Catholic.
My question as a Lutheran: how do you think you would handle Purgatory? I often quote here Father Tavard’s remark here:

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

We Lutherans have not done well with the concept of purgatory – generally from the point of view that once we die our earthly trappings (including our sins or the remnants of them) are no longer part of us, presuming that those sins have been forgiven through the suffering and death of Christ. From that perspective, in Lutheran belief there is no need for a final cleansing because the forgiveness of our sins is total and nothing of that sin remains in us.

As I understand Catholic teachings, even after one is absolved of sin there is a “stain” that remains on the soul as a result of that sin. It is this stain, or remnant of forgiven sin, that must be cleansed before the soul enters heaven. Thus, purgatory is that place where the final purging of all traces of sin is accomplished so that one can make that entry into God’s presence.

It is important to remember that in Catholic understanding all the souls in purgatory are going to enter heaven – that judgment has already been made. The question has been “how long is the cleansing process?” In previous times the Church, as I understand it, taught that certain acts could be applied to shorten or eliminate the time a soul would spend in purgatory, even to specifying the number of years that a particular act – of devotion, charity, etc. – would take off “Grandpa’s” time in the cleansing fires. These acts could result in full (plenary) indulgences that would send “Grandpa” straight into heaven, hence the oft quoted jingle, “when the coin in the coffer clings, the soul from purgatory springs” or they could result in partial indulgences which only took some time off. I have to say that I never understood how a determination was made as to how many years a soul would have to spend being cleansed.

From a Lutheran perspective, Tavard’s commentary is reasonable inasmuch as we would agree that nothing unclean can enter into the heavenly kingdom. That is the place in which sin does not exist in any form. How that final cleansing happens and how long it takes is mere speculation, although we say that one whose sins have been forgiven is no longer subject to sin once he or she leaves the kingdom of the world through death. It could be said that the moment of death is the final liberation and cleansing from the things of this world, sin and its effects included.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[rinnie]

We Lutherans have not done well with the concept of purgatory – generally from the point of view that once we die our earthly trappings (including our sins or the remnants of them) are no longer part of us, presuming that those sins have been forgiven through the suffering and death of Christ. From that perspective, in Lutheran belief there is no need for a final cleansing because the forgiveness of our sins is total and nothing of that sin remains in us.

As I understand Catholic teachings, even after one is absolved of sin there is a “stain” that remains on the soul as a result of that sin. It is this stain, or remnant of forgiven sin, that must be cleansed before the soul enters heaven. Thus, purgatory is that place where the final purging of all traces of sin is accomplished so that one can make that entry into God’s presence.

It is important to remember that in Catholic understanding all the souls in purgatory are going to enter heaven – that judgment has already been made. The question has been “how long is the cleansing process?” In previous times the Church, as I understand it, taught that certain acts could be applied to shorten or eliminate the time a soul would spend in purgatory, even to specifying the number of years that a particular act – of devotion, charity, etc. – would take off “Grandpa’s” time in the cleansing fires. These acts could result in full (plenary) indulgences that would send “Grandpa” straight into heaven, hence the oft quoted jingle, “when the coin in the coffer clings, the soul from purgatory springs” or they could result in partial indulgences which only took some time off. I have to say that I never understood how a determination was made as to how many years a soul would have to spend being cleansed.

From a Lutheran perspective, Tavard’s commentary is reasonable inasmuch as we would agree that nothing unclean can enter into the heavenly kingdom. That is the place in which sin does not exist in any form. How that final cleansing happens and how long it takes is mere speculation, although we say that one whose sins have been forgiven is no longer subject to sin once he or she leaves the kingdom of the world through death. It could be said that the moment of death is the final liberation and cleansing from the things of this world, sin and its effects included.

Just a few thoughts.

You are right we COULD say that. Or we could take scripture that says nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven and while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

Buts its okay and we can still and love and respect eachother.

But I do have a question if you would not mind me asking.

This is just me asking and I am trying to put myself in your mindset if you do not mind. No disrepect on my part I swear.

Now do Lutherans believe in prayers for the dead? I swear I do not know the answer to this I am only asking.

 

[gcnuss]

Now do Lutherans believe in prayers for the dead? I swear I do not know the answer to this I am only asking.

There is not a simple “yes” or “no” to this. Indeed, in our funeral services we pray that God will take the deceased into his eternal care. From our service of burial:

Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your servant (name). Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your own redeeming. Receive (name) into the arms of your mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the saints in light.

So there is a time when we pray for the dead. But once we have committed a person into our Lord’s eternal care, we don’t believe that there is any necessity to offer further prayers in their behalf. We do, of course, pray in thanksgiving for the life and witness of the saints who have gone before us but that is not a prayer for them. If we operate from the understanding that final cleansing is a momentary thing at the time of death, those who have entered into God’s nearer presence are no longer in need of our prayers.

 

[JonNC]

We Lutherans have not done well with the concept of purgatory – generally from the point of view that once we die our earthly trappings (including our sins or the remnants of them) are no longer part of us, presuming that those sins have been forgiven through the suffering and death of Christ. From that perspective, in Lutheran belief there is no need for a final cleansing because the forgiveness of our sins is total and nothing of that sin remains in us.

As I understand Catholic teachings, even after one is absolved of sin there is a “stain” that remains on the soul as a result of that sin. It is this stain, or remnant of forgiven sin, that must be cleansed before the soul enters heaven. Thus, purgatory is that place where the final purging of all traces of sin is accomplished so that one can make that entry into God’s presence.

It is important to remember that in Catholic understanding all the souls in purgatory are going to enter heaven – that judgment has already been made. The question has been “how long is the cleansing process?” In previous times the Church, as I understand it, taught that certain acts could be applied to shorten or eliminate the time a soul would spend in purgatory, even to specifying the number of years that a particular act – of devotion, charity, etc. – would take off “Grandpa’s” time in the cleansing fires. These acts could result in full (plenary) indulgences that would send “Grandpa” straight into heaven, hence the oft quoted jingle, “when the coin in the coffer clings, the soul from purgatory springs” or they could result in partial indulgences which only took some time off. I have to say that I never understood how a determination was made as to how many years a soul would have to spend being cleansed.

From a Lutheran perspective, Tavard’s commentary is reasonable inasmuch as we would agree that nothing unclean can enter into the heavenly kingdom. That is the place in which sin does not exist in any form. How that final cleansing happens and how long it takes is mere speculation, although we say that one whose sins have been forgiven is no longer subject to sin once he or she leaves the kingdom of the world through death. It could be said that the moment of death is the final liberation and cleansing from the things of this world, sin and its effects included.

Just a few thoughts.

Thanks, Pastor. I tend to generally concur.
On another thread I have participated with a good Catholic who proposed that, because of our belief that righteousness is imputed, and not infused, that Lutherans must believe our sinful selves, merely covered with Christ’s righteousness, enter Heaven.
Clearly, nothing of our sinfulness remains when we enter Heaven.

Jon

 

[AwGusTeen]

Well; most Churches, including your’s has their own brands of “revisionist history.” When Catholic “history” is compared with other views; it does not always coincide or match. I don’t think that “technically correct” is the correct phrase for you to be using.

I didn’t use that phrase originally (although I agree with it) - it came from Jon Hus to whom I was replying. As to comparing “…Catholic ‘history’ [to] other views…” Where do you think historians have gone to gather data and do research regarding Church History? The source - the Vatican!

Peace!

 

[Redratfish]

Protestant versus Catholic. Why does it have to be like this? What does the Church of Rome want to see happen for “unity?”

Unity will IMO never happen. As much as I want it to (believe me, I’ve gone to Protestant Churches to find similarities, studied different religions, ect), the problem is unity itself. Whenever a large group of people come together and make peace, who represents them? A leader, from the earliest days, a leader represented his people in times of negotiation. The Pope, the Patriach, and the Archbishop of Cantebury are all leaders of their respective Church. They can potentially make peace. However, with other denominations, such as Baptists, and Methodist, there is no centralized leader, other than God. How are they suppose to come to unity? Church by Church?

I honestly feel like the Protestant reformation was like toothpaste. Its all over the place right now. It is possible to get some of it back in the tube over a long period of time, but impossible to get all of it.

 

[JonNC]

Unity will IMO never happen. As much as I want it to (believe me, I’ve gone to Protestant Churches to find similarities, studied different religions, ect), the problem is unity itself. Whenever a large group of people come together and make peace, who represents them? A leader, from the earliest days, a leader represented his people in times of negotiation. The Pope, the Patriach, and the Archbishop of Cantebury are all leaders of their respective Church. They can potentially make peace.
I honestly feel like the Protestant reformation was like toothpaste. Its all over the place right now. It is possible to get some of it back in the tube over a long period of time, but impossible to get all of it.

So, since it may not be possible to get it all, are you saying we shouldn’t try?
The pope’s “bridge to unity” for Anglicans (done independently of the AofC) probably won’t bring all Anglicans to Rome. Should it therefore be abandoned?

However, with other denominations, such as Baptists, and Methodist, there is no centralized leader, other than God. How are they suppose to come to unity? Church by Church?

By God, all things are possible. Who better as a centralized leader?
In March the pope visited the Lutheran Church in Rome. In his homily he said:

“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar”, he said.

“This”, he went on, "cannot but make us sad because it is a situation of sin; and yet unity cannot be achieved by men. We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. Let us hope that He brings us to that goal".

catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4152

Certainly the extent of the doctrinal differences and the level of willingness of humans within a Church communion will hinder or help the speed at which unity will ocurr, but it is not men who will achieve unity, only the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[Bbigam]

You make my point for me very well, that is to repeat again, unity for catholics means that protestants/orthodox and and any other interloper should conform to Rome, become catholics.

On matters of faith and morals - absolutely yes! For full unity, the fullness of the Truth, as taught by the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor to St. Peter and Vicar of Christ, is absolutely vital. This includes acceptance of the role of the Pope.

However, unity does not mean uniformity in all matters of discipline and liturgy and practice. What I mean by this is that, for example, you do not have to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass according to the Roman Rite in order to celebrate a Eucharistic Liturgy in unity with the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the Byzantine Rite are great examples of this, celebrating very externally different liturgies (and even in many cases, having married priests), but all in full union with the Holy Father and having the same intrinsic qualities - a different way of celebrating the Eucharist that is still in conformity with the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

 

[rinnie]

There is not a simple “yes” or “no” to this. Indeed, in our funeral services we pray that God will take the deceased into his eternal care. From our service of burial:

So there is a time when we pray for the dead. But once we have committed a person into our Lord’s eternal care, we don’t believe that there is any necessity to offer further prayers in their behalf. We do, of course, pray in thanksgiving for the life and witness of the saints who have gone before us but that is not a prayer for them. If we operate from the understanding that final cleansing is a momentary thing at the time of death, those who have entered into God’s nearer presence are no longer in need of our prayers.

Okay that would make sense then, Kinda.

See to us when the person is separated from the body, the moment of death, the soul departs from the body right away. Thats why its ashes to ashes dust to dust. Just like when God breathed life into Adam.

So in a way from what you wrote you either have a different belief of the soul leaving the body or you feel that the person has a certain time period for God to accept them or deny them Not sure what you are saying. Sorry sometimes I need people to explain things a llittle better to me. But its better to ask then to misunderstand

See in the CC that person is commited to Gods care after that last breath is taken. It is then that the person is judged. Long before the funeral. You are either deemed worthy of heaven or you are not.

Then as you know purgatory sets in. If you are worthy you may still need the final Bath

But how long and etc is between you and God. Thats why we pray for the souls of purgatory if people only knew what 1 prayer from us could do Its amazing. You could cut a person out of 2 or more years of Purgatory time just guessing but I think you get my point by just one prayer.

Anothewords a person may be very close and that one Prayer that took us a second could do alot.

Now the Prayers in Thanksgiving for the Saints I agree with, and we are exactly the same there. But we believe when our loved ones reach heaven they become Saints.

But we can never assume. So I am 99.9% sure my Brother and Papa are in heaven. But I still cannot play God. So I pray for them, and ask God if they are in heaven to give that prayer to the next person on the List Or let God choose who he wants to give it too.

 

[rinnie]

Unity will IMO never happen. As much as I want it to (believe me, I’ve gone to Protestant Churches to find similarities, studied different religions, ect), the problem is unity itself. Whenever a large group of people come together and make peace, who represents them? A leader, from the earliest days, a leader represented his people in times of negotiation. The Pope, the Patriach, and the Archbishop of Cantebury are all leaders of their respective Church. They can potentially make peace. However, with other denominations, such as Baptists, and Methodist, there is no centralized leader, other than God. How are they suppose to come to unity? Church by Church?

I honestly feel like the Protestant reformation was like toothpaste. Its all over the place right now. It is possible to get some of it back in the tube over a long period of time, but impossible to get all of it.

Not me I know its going to happen. Its just gonna take time, and alot of us comming together and having ALOT of GRACE poured into us from the Holy Spriit to make it happen.

But remember NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD.