Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[Swiss_Guy]

I did and the church deacon was guiding me through it.

My mom has had communion at a Catholic Church too (she’s Lutheran). But it’s against Church teaching to have it, and it always has been. So I’m thinking that the parish ministers were pretty liberal to allow that to happen.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly, what teaching of Christ did Lutherans reject, was it papal authority if so, when did Christ say that Rome was His Seat on earth?

Jesus gave certain gifts and responsibilities to Peter that Peter passed on to his successor, and so on to this day.

Among these were the duties to feed and care for the flock of God. Do you think it is possible to feed and care for a flock over which one has no authority?

When Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, He said “all authority have been given to me…go therefore”. They were sent in His authority. Jesus is Head of the Church. His Church is founded upon the Apostles and prophets. That Church, founded upon the Aposltes and prophets, is the Church that is in unity with the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

If I am a part of the Catholic Church, why can’t I take communion in a Catholic Church?

Because you are improperly joined, inadequately catechized, and could incur spiritual and temporal damage for receiving communion in such a state.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve done everything short of confirmation, when it comes to becoming Catholic.

If this is true, then why are you asking the question about why non-Catholics are expected to refrain from communion?

Then, I prayed about it and the holy Spirit led me to a non-denominational church who welcomes Catholics with open arms and doesn’t try to get them to change their beliefs or become a member of their church. Instead, they treat them the same as they do those who are members.

I wonder what would have happened if the Apostles just welcomed people of other faiths with open arms, and did not try to get them to change their beliefs, or become a member of their Church? I wonder why they were so strong about One Faith, and not having any different doctrines? I guess they were just to strict, don’t you think? If the Apostles had been more open minded and welcoming of differences, wouldn’t that be better?

Another Catholic told me to follow the Holy Spirit, wherever it was to lead me. One reason I would want to is, because my husband is Catholic and we could take communion together at his church, too. Also, allowing other Christians to take communion in the Catholic church would help encourage unity. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

One has to wonder what it means to “take communion”.

In the Catholic Church, we don’t “take” communion, but receive it. If you had done “everything short of confirmation” then you would know this about the Eucharist. It is received.

Communion is not for the purpose of “encouraging unity”, but rather, as celebration of the unity that already exists. When people who do not accept the One Faith of the Aposltes participate, they lie with their bodies, pretending to participate in a communion that does not, in reality, exist.

 

[guanophore]

I've done everything short of confirmation, when it comes to becoming Catholic. During the whole thing the priest acted like he didn't want me in His church.

This is very curious.

I am sorry that you did not feel welcomed, awantz. However, if you are going to allow the deficiencies of hospitality of one person to prevent you from entering, then you are clearly not ready for the fullness of the faith.

 I could go on and on, but I won't.

Actually, it sounds like you really need to go on about this. In fact, that is why CAF is here. I suggest you open a new thread, perhaps in Apologetics.

One thing I'd like to add that came from another topic,

Rather than hope everyone converts to catholicism, perhaps we should hope that all of us, as members of the Body of Christ; regardless of denomination or belief, will lift one another up, encourage and support.

Catholics believe that the best way for each member of the Body to be encouraged and lifted up is to walk in the fullness of the Apostolic faith, which is present in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. It is the One Church founded by Jesus, from which all others have denominated. And with each and every denomination, more of the Gospel message has been lost.

I have had the Light of Christ in my heart for MANY years, before joining this forum. WE can all learn from each other, and love each other, as Christ intended it to be!

Amen sister.

 

[guanophore]

I see what you’re saying. Protestants are members of the Catholic Church. But Protestants are still a different religion in that - in the view of the Church - they are not conducting their worship of God properly (in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) and they have corrupted some of the doctrines of the Church (Purgatory, the Real Presence, Mary as Theotokos, et cetera). Thus, they are a different religion in the eyes of the Church.

I think that is what is being said, but that is not what the Church teaches. The CC teaches that validly baptized persons are Christians - members of the One Body.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with the new beginning, and to that I would add…of a new religion.

And in doing so, you would separate yourself from the Teachings of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

The world sees what I and you see. The tragedy is that those in the new religion do not see what you and I see and the world sees.

Is this not a rather bold presumption? It seems to me that many of our separated brethren see and practice the One Faith more fully than many Catholics.

The practices of the Catholic religion were questioned during the Reformation and the beliefs of men such as Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) prompted a new religion called Protestantism.

I think there are two errors in this passage. One is that the practices of Catholicism were questioned. For the most part, it was abuses, not the Teachings of the Church that were questioned. And those persons who did attempt to rectify the abuses by creating new doctrines are called heretics. The Church teaches that those who have unwittingly embraced these heresies are not themselves heretics, and if validly baptized, are members of the Christian Church.

The name Protestant seems to have been first applied to the protesting princes by their opponents, and it soon came to be used indiscriminately of all the adherents of the reformed religion. Its use appears to have spread more rapidly outside Germany than in Germany itself, one cause of its popularity being that it was negative and colourless, and could thus be applied by adherents of the “old religion” to those of the “**new religion,” **without giving offence, on occasions when it was expedient to avoid abusive language

korcula.net/history/mmarelic/luther.htm

I think it is clear to anyone reading the documents of the Reformation that the term “protestant” was used as offensively as “papist”.

Luther continued to write work in which he attacked the church or discussed books of the Bible. His teaching eventually inspired a new Protestant religion called Lutheranism. This **new religion** would continue to oppose the once all-powerful Catholic Church.

This is a non-Catholic viewpoint.

These are just a few examples of what the world sees. History as we all know when seen through the eyes of the New Religion favors the new religion and is often out of step with history as we know it. This is why many do not know their roots.

I think people don’t know their roots for the same reason I did not. They don’t study.

Protestant thought can be traced to Knox, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, all catholic, white europeans starting a new religion, introducing novel concepts like extrinsic justification, denial of Church Authority, claiming salvation by Faith alone, and using the Bible alone. It has flourished.

These represent heresies. If it were a new religion, they would not be considered heresies. Heresy is a departure from the orthodox faith. One must first have been a member of the orthodox faith.

Mormons started a new religion that differed from the Protestant group from which it sprang. Joseph Smith born into Protestant thought created a new religion, differing from Protestantism in general, adding to the Protestant revalation and redifining many of the aforementioned Protestant ideas. This too has flourished.

The difference is, Coptic, that the Mormons and the JW’s do not espouse Christian doctrine, and do constitute a “new religion”. On the other hand, our separated brethren do hold the majority of Christian doctrines, which is why they are considered “Christian” by the Church.

Besides, your term “Protestant revalation”, in addition to being misspelled, is misleading. There was no new or different “revalation” given to Protestants. The differences result from the ideas of man, not from the revelation of God.

 

[Contarini]

Hello Contarini,
What do you find lacking in the translation?

Well, it’s hard to define, because it’s stylistic. It just sounds clunky. A good translation pays attention to the rhythms of the new language as well as the meaning of the old. The “old” ICEL translation often obscured the meaning of the original and made it vague, and the style of English it used was overly colloquial and simplistic. The new one is more literal, but the very literalism takes away from the majesty. To be honest, looking at it again I like it a lot better than I did when I first saw it (maybe it’s been improved, or maybe I was just too censorious the first time), but I still think that the Anglican liturgy captures the beauty of the Latin better.

Sorry this is vague. Here are a couple of specific points, which will seem nit-picking but may give some idea of what I’m after:

1. The “new” translation returns to the traditional Catholic practice (evident in the Douay-Rheims) of favoring Latinisms over Anglo-Saxonisms. Perhaps this is just because my ear is formed by the KJV, the BCP, and Shakespeare, but I find that this kind of language lacks punch. So, for instance, I get why the new translation of the Gloria says “we adore you” instead of “we worship you” (“adore” conveys the fact that this is latria–“worship” has been used in English in the past in the sense of “dulia” as well as latria), but I still don’t like it. “Worship” connects with me, and I think with English-speakers generally, in a way that “adore” doesn’t.
2. Latin structure doesn’t translate well into modern English. My major scholarly project right now is a commentary on Mark taken from sixteenth-century writings, and it involves a lot of Latin translation. So I deal with this problem on a daily basis. A literal approach produces very bad rhythms in English, and the translators/revisers of the new version don’t seem to have been sufficiently sensitive to this. For instance, this sentence:

To our departed brothers and sisters, too, and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life,
give kind admittance to your kingdom.

is just bad English style. It works fine in Latin–not in English.

Mind you, I had to hunt longer than I expected for a sufficiently bad example–I’ve definitely been too hard on this translation in the past.

A lot of the problem is just endemic to the Roman canon. Not only does it translate poorly into other languages, but even in Latin it’s a weird Eucharistic prayer compared to most of the other traditional ones–it has no flow and reads like a lot of separate prayers stuck together. It doesn’t give a narrative of salvation history the way that the prayer of St. Basil, for instance, does (frankly, if I had any say in the matter, I’d be inclined to push for the Liturgy of St. Basil to be accepted as the basic Eucharistic Prayer of the whole Church, with generous allowance for local variations–and the two-lungs metaphor could just go jump in the Bosphorus). Should the Roman Liturgy really be given the “credit” for Latin missionary activity at the cost of imposing on Catholics worldwide a patchwork Eucharistic prayer that doesn’t translate well into any language but Latin?

I shouldn’t take out my frustrations with the Roman canon on the translators. I do think that it’s possible to do it much better than they have–look at the more traditional, archaic translation found in old Missals, let alone the Protestantized adaptation of parts of the prayer made by Cranmer–but probably it would be hard to to a good job into modern English without a fairly drastic use of “dynamic equivalence”–and the dynamic equivalence approach (like a lot of other things that may not be bad in themselves) has been discredited by the way it was implemented after Vatican II (in the “old” ICEL translation, with its studied banality).

The best solution isn’t available to us now–it would have been for the English Church as a whole to have remained in communion with Rome, and Cranmer with it, and for a traditional translation of the Mass into English, made by Cranmer with approval from Rome, to have gained the same place in English-language culture that the BCP and the KJV have in fact gained. (Same with the KJV style of translation in contrast to the over-Latinized Douay-Rheims.)

But that hasn’t happened. While I like the Anglican Missal (the 1921 translation of the Roman Missal into a Cranmerian style, with some elements taken over from the BCP) and have no problems with archaic language myself, I recognize that it would be hard to get Catholics as a whole to accept the Anglican Missal.

Edwin

 

[awantz]

This is very curious.

I am sorry that you did not feel welcomed, awantz. However, if you are going to allow the deficiencies of hospitality of one person to prevent you from entering, then you are clearly not ready for the fullness of the faith.

Actually, it sounds like you really need to go on about this. In fact, that is why CAF is here. I suggest you open a new thread, perhaps in Apologetics.

The Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. It is the One Church founded by Jesus, from which all others have denominated. And with each and every denomination, more of the Gospel message has been lost.

Amen sister.

I’m not allowing one person to keep me from joining. I’m allowing the spirit to keep me.

I’ll do that.

The Christian Church is the One Church founded by Jesus. All Christians are part of one body/ church. Listening to you say that, makes me wonder why you would agree with me later.

 

[guanophore]

I was already baptized “In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit” . I received instruction prior to receiving Holy Communion. I do believe that. My husband and I have attended both of our churches together since before we were married.

Whatever instruction you received appears to be deficient.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not allowing one person to keep me from joining. I’m allowing the spirit to keep me.

I’ll do that.

I am glad that you are not prevented by one objectionable person. Unfortunately it is all too common.

Perhaps you can understand why “the Spirit” keeps you from Catholicism? If you are going to open a new thread please post the link so I can find you.

 

[awantz]

I am glad that you are not prevented by one objectionable person. Unfortunately it is all too common.

Perhaps you can understand why “the Spirit” keeps you from Catholicism? If you are going to open a new thread please post the link so I can find you.

I will if I can figure out how.

 

[John_oxios]

You are incorrect, because my husband takes communion at my church and his church has nothing against it.

Non-Catholic Christians are allowed to go to each others’ churches and partake of communion there. I do attend the Catholic Church. I attend a lot more than some Catholics do. I’ve expressed my reasons, for not going through with confirmation, in other forums. My husband and I took communion together at our wedding. So, why was it OK the and not now?

Hello awantz,

Really? Says who? Do they know? They may know he attends your services but do they know he receives whatever it is you call your communion? He needs a dispensation from his Pastor, Bishop for special instances. What is your Church? What is it your Church believes the Eucharist is? I’ve attended Greek Orthodox services and received by consent of both Church’s, In the Greek Orthodox, when they do anointing they reserve a certain oil ONly for the Greek Orthodox, I notify them I am a Roman Catholic and they give me the other anointing oil.

I stopped receiving in the Lutheran Church because I knew the difference in my heart. Love the community, the Pastor gives awesome Bible Studies and great sermons… but I no longer receive communion there because they are preaching something different than what the Bible and the RC Church say the Eucharist is.

And when feel the know the difference to continue is grave sin.

If your Church thinks the Eucharist is anything less than than the Body, soul and divinity of Christ, than he is receiving in grave error. Even your minister’s have to be recognized by the Roman Church as those who are Able to do the Consecration in the Catholic Tradition.
What your husband is proclaiming each time he receives in your Church is that there is no difference in what your faith says the Eucharist is, and what the Catholic Church says it is.

Phl 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you **that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, **

1Cr 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Cr 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Your husband cannot have it both ways, it either is as the RCC teaches or it isn’t.
Nobody questioned or challenged, the Catholic church teaching on the Eucharist till the 11th century. The Eastern Church’s bowed out only because they were adamant of the fact that The eucharist being the Body, Soul divinity of Christ is a Spiritual/ Church mystery that can’t be defined philosophically.

non catholics/ protetants communities the eucharist doesn’t mean anything but a symbolic sharing between the congregation as something that happened two thousand yrs. ago. But the Church teach’s it is a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, it is reality distilled, it is actually happening and we are participants. Christ is Eternal therefore His Sacrifice IS eternal, out of time.
There are lot’s of Catholics who do more harm to Church teachings to please wives, family and friends… Christ taught that His teachings were going to separate bone from marrow. It either is or isn’t … And there’s no bones about that
Good luck, God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I’m not allowing one person to keep me from joining. I’m allowing the spirit to keep me.

I’ll do that.

The Christian Church is the One Church founded by Jesus. All Christians are part of one body/ church. Listening to you say that, makes me wonder why you would agree with me later.

Error, until the protestant reformation 16th century it was one holy Cathlolic Church, the reformation deny’s the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, teachings, Sacred Traditions, traditions It deny’s the fact that throughout the Bible God’s people were a Patriarchal Society, whose leaders led appointed by God so they Sheep would not be without a shepherd.
They made their own traditions and leaders outside the Catholic Church’s. We are Brothers in Christ through Baptism, “In the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

plenty of groups over the centuries called themselves Christian, because they believed they were following Christ’s teachings… but they were not christian at all they taught another Jesus.

1Cr 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be** guilty** of profaning the body and blood of the Lord

Guilty Grk ‘enochos’ Strong’s #G1777

1. bound, under obligation, subject to, liable
   a) used of one who is held by, possessed with love, and zeal for anything
   b) in a forensic sense, denoting the connection of a person either with his crime, or with the penalty or trial, or with that against whom or which he has offended
2. guilty, worthy of punishment
3. guilty of anything
4. of the crime
5. of the penalty
6. liable to this or that tribunal i.e. the punishment to by imposed by this or that tribunal
7. of the place where punishment is to be suffered

How can you receive something regarded as just bread, symbolic or just an action of remembrance and become worthy of punishment???

Paul also writes:
1Cr 11:18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as** a **church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
1Cr 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized

The Catholic Church hasn’t changed it’s teachings on the Eucharist in 2000 yrs. And it’s teaching is genuine.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I did and the church deacon was guiding me through it.

I like these converstaions where protestants teach catholics about catholicism…they seem to think they’re always right? however

He was wrong, you have to accept and proclaim and swear an oath, that what you are about to receive is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In front of the whole Church, i.e. @ the Easter Vigil. A deacon cannot Consecrate the bread and wine… he may have walked through the ritual, with non consecrated hosts.

Children/ adults entering the community through RCIA, prior to receiving the Eucharist will be shown non consecrated hosts, for understanding… but it is not the Eucharist.

I’d love to know what Roman Catholic Church community allows protestants to receive the Eucharist, so I could write them.

The need for safeguarding and protecting worthy participation in the Eucharist has compelled the Church to introduce as the norm in its discipline and pastoral practice that confession should precede communion. In this way it respects the right of the faithful, both adults and children, to receive the sacrament of reconciliation.

Catholic Law/Canon [Canon means ‘reed’ or ‘measure’]

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
2. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

…Under what conditions, therefore, may non-Catholics from the Reformation churches receive? Paragraph 4 addresses this matter and sets stricter conditions than for non-Catholics who belong to Churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance. These conditions are:
a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are
complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed.

These last two conditions are very important. When Catholics and Orthodox present themselves for Communion, either to their own minister or that of another Church with valid sacraments, Eucharistic faith and proper disposition is assumed, given the introduction to both Penance and the Eucharist at an early age in Churches which have a Catholic Eucharistic faith. However, when a non-Catholic presents himself the norms presume an investigation to determine the person’s faith, and to determine the necessary moral conditions for a proper reception of the Eucharist. That all these conditions are met, especially the last two, cannot be determined by a minister of Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, in the Communion line. This is why the USCCB guidelines, which are published in the back of every missalette, exclude weddings, funerals and other such occasions as appropriate for intercommunion. The occasions would be individual, normally determined by a pastor after consultation with the bishop, or, in accordance with norms drawn up on the basis of this canon. (paragraph 5).

A deacon is not authorized to allow for non-catholic communion without his Pastor or bishops consent. A deacon is a servant of his local community.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm

or try this Why the Church restricts access to communion:
/www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/ZRSTRCOM.HTM

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

I did and the church deacon was guiding me through it.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/ZRSTRCOM.HTM

**The moral and pastoral norm followed by priests when distributing Communion is to deny it publicly to those who are publicly known as persons who cannot receive it. **To proceed otherwise would mean to cast aside the theological and ecclesiological meaning of which we spoke earlier…

For Catholics, the eventual distribution of Communion to a non-Catholic, within a Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, implies a contradiction, as it would imply an ecclesial communion that does not exist in its fullness. Something similar occurs in the case of the eventual Communion of a public sinner…

Therefore, Eucharistic Communion and communion in truth cannot be separated. In this line, the Catholic Church denies Eucharistic Communion to those who do not participate fully of its ecclesial communion, as they cannot participate in the sign of full unity who do not possess it wholly.

In short, according to the Catholic point of view, access to Eucharistic Communion without full ecclesial communion is, first of all, an absurd action, as it does not realize the significant aspect characteristic of the sacramental dynamics; and by not signifying this, it does not cause it either.

It must be added that the desire and spiritual need to receive Communion is something profoundly personal, but never a “private” event, precisely because we are before an ecclesial good—ecclesial par excellence—of which we are not the owners.

Not to respect this discipline is not only a contradiction in the one who goes to Communion, but also in the whole ecclesial community.

Not to accept our teaching, and receive without the discipline or understanding of the Catholic Faith is a careless act and disrespect and disregard to our faith.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Originally Posted by hn160
Exactly, what teaching of Christ did Lutherans reject, was it papal authority if so, when did Christ say that Rome was His Seat on earth?

Jesus gave certain gifts and responsibilities to Peter that Peter passed on to his successor, and so on to this day.

Among these were the duties to feed and care for the flock of God. Do you think it is possible to feed and care for a flock over which one has no authority?

When Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, He said “all authority have been given to me…go therefore”. They were sent in His authority. Jesus is Head of the Church. His Church is founded upon the Apostles and prophets. That Church, founded upon the Aposltes and prophets, is the Church that is in unity with the successor of Peter.

Hi Guys,
Rome was the capital of the pagan empire, and it was a very important City of the world… What better place for Christ’s Church to be the light of the World… it was so important Paul write the letters to the Romans before he brought there to die in witness to Christ, Peter wound up there, most likely guided by the Holy Spirit, and Martyred there also, as a witness to Christ and His Church.

As far as Peter’s authority? It’s the way God has done it since Moses, a prophet like
What Peter binds or looses is bound in heaven,
As the head steward til Christ return:
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Biblical precedent:

Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim’s shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family

Num 27:15 Moses said to the LORD,

Num 27:16 "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh,** appoint a man over the congregation,**

Num 27:17 who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep which have no shepherd."

Num 27:18 And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him;

Deu 18:15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren–him you shall heed–
Deu 18:18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
Mar 6:15 But others said, “It is Eli’jah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

**Marianism - **I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine. I’m not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking. I’m satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

**Confession would be new and strange for me. ** I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

Let’s start with Marianism? It is a derogatory protestant term toward the honor and veneration due Mary as Christ’s Mother, The Angel calls her full of Grace, and that the Lord is with you.

Christ loved His Mother, are we not to emulate Him? What about the command to honor thy Father and Mother? Does that mean we get to disrespect anybody else’s mother??

Who else in the Bible is full of Grace outside of John the Baptist, who is full of the holy Spirit in the womb.
and as far a the’ Lord is with you’ it is used only one other time :

Jdg 6:12 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, “The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor.”

Gideon is called to save Israel: Jdg 6:14 And the LORD turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Mid’ian; do not I send you?"

For centuries men honored other men by calling them your lordship,’ ‘your worship’ it wasn’t worship as in Godly worship, but honor and veneration towards fellow men.

Now english is a limited language, In the Latin there are three terms for worship:

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

**La·tri·a **  [luh-trahy-uh]
noun, Roman Catholic Theology .
the supreme worship, which may be offered to God only.

How hard is it too look the the term? In english it is with a capital ‘W’

2nd term: Dulia dictionary.com
du·li·a **  [doo-lahy-uh]
noun, Roman Catholic Theology .
veneration and invocation given to saints as the servants of God**.

and then there is ‘hyper-dulia’

Dictionary.com:

hy·per·du·li·a   [hahy-per-doo-lee-uh, -dyoo-]
noun, Roman Catholic Theology
.
the veneration offered to the Virgin Mary as the most exalted of creatures.

Hyper-dulia places Mary above men, but still beneath God. The Church has done this since the first century, naming Church’s after Mary for her role in our Salvation History.

But in English those three terms all are translated worship… and then the protestants cry foul not understanding the lies they perpetrate!

No Mary? No Jesus!

So Mary is ‘Full of Grace’ {what is full can’f be filled more] and she is called upon, just as Gideon was called upon, ‘to help save’ not only Israel, but the entire World through her Son Jesus and His Church. If we are Brothers in Christ, than Mary is our spiritual Mother!

Confession strange?? for who? Don’t you protestants have what they call OPEN TESTIMONY?’ You get up in front of the assembly tell what you were like, what happened to you, and then how God helped change your habits and behavior toward the Good. That’s open confession!! No different in the Catholic Church with the exception that Jesus forgives us our sins, and He tells us through His priest we are absolved from these confessed sins, and the priest celebrates our forgiveness with us.

Protestants don’t go to ministers they go to therapists, who can’t absolve them of their sins, but try in a secular way to make them better people. Only Jesus Christ can change Human Nature… and you can’t do that by just having a personal relationship with Him!
WHY? because that isn’t in the Bible!! Show me that in the Bible!!! That is a protestnt man made tradition.

Jesus ordains and empowers His Apostles, [before The Pentecost]

Jhn 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; **if you retain the sins of any, **they are retained.

And the apostles past down these powers through the laying on of hands to each successor.

Now there’s two ** If’s ** in there? correct? Can you honestly say calliing up to God, and forgiving yourself that, that is iffy?? Christ gave them a commission, to carry on… now the protestants come around and say, ahhh pay no attention to that confession nonsense… the Holy Spirit always got your back, because you can’t lose your salvation by confessing with your lips! Well it takes a lot more than uttering the words… and Christ biblically does not waste his Word.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I’m not allowing one person to keep me from joining**. I’m allowing the spirit to keep me.**

I’ll do that.

The Christian Church is the One Church founded by Jesus. All Christians are part of one body/ church. Listening to you say that, makes me wonder why you would agree with me later.

Hello,

You have to test the spirit, there’s the spirit of pride, which can keep you from God.

Pro 11:2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace; but with the humble is wisdom.
Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall

Then there is contempt, which is a hatred prior to investigation. And that is a grave matter because one makes up their own mind and doesn’t seek understanding.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

commentary: David Guzik, BlueletterBible.org
blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=8098&commInfo=31&topic=1%20John&ar=1Jo_4_1

A. Protection against the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1. (1) The fact of false prophets and the need to test the spirits.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

a. Do not believe every spirit: John warned against believing every spirit; that is, **we are never to assume every spiritual experience or every demonstration of spiritual power is from God. **We must test spiritual experiences and spiritual phenomenon to see if they are in fact from God.

i. Many, when first encountering the reality of the spiritual world, are too impressed and amazed to ask whether they are of God. This leads to easy deception.

b. But test the spirits: This is important because **many false prophets have gone out into the world. **Even though the early church had a strong life, and a large measure of purity, John still knew the danger false prophets and their message was real in the early church.

c. Test the spirits, whether they are of God: This is the responsibility of every Christian, but especially of congregational leadership. According to 1 Corinthians 14:29 (let the others judge) and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (Test all things; hold fast what is good), testing the spirits is the work of the body of Christ. This job is to be done using the gifts of discernment God has given to Christians in general, especially the leadership of a congregation.

i. All prophecy is to be judged by Scriptural standards.** It is never to be received just because it is dramatic or given by a certain person.** We trust in the principle that God will never contradict Himself, and we know what He has already said in His Word.

ii. 2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us true prophecy is never of any private interpretation. This means that there will be agreement and confirmation from the body of Christ, though perhaps (or probably) not everyone will agree or confirm.

… John makes it clear that error has a spiritual dynamic to it; it isn’t just about being educated or smart. Some very educated, very smart people can still be influence mightily by the spirit of error. Since error has a spiritual dynamic to it, keeping in the spirit of truth is a spiritual issue.